Kompromat

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well, exactly. It was to get rid of gray areas.
The N laws laid out who was considered Jewish - amongst other things it did. Wendy says you are she are racial separatists. What will your parallel to the Nuremberg laws be. IOW how will you separate? What percentages of genes? What about adopted kids of other races? etc.

I fail to see the importance of the comparison.

Sigh. Wendy said you and she are racial separatists. It ain't easy to separate races, give that they are often mixed in a variety of ways in one and hte same person or in families. There are percentages involved. The Nazis being the little drones they were came up with those laws, precisely to make separation and separate treatment easy to apply: you had this much jewish blood, you were Jewish, etc. I am pretty sure they broke up marriages where one was Jewish. I don't know what they did with adopted Jews or Aryan children adopted by Jews. I am sure they did not care about long term professoinal and personal relatoinships. Those were some of their criteria when enacting racial separation.

So, if she is right and you are a race separatist, what will your Nuremberg laws look like?

[iambiguous]

Does he or does he not completely avoid the discussion that I wish to have with him?

You gotta get a handle on other people having their own goals in discussions. There is every chance he focuses on what he wants to just as you focus on what you want to.

I don't think you understand how it comes off like you think other people either are here to serve your purposes or are afraid of doing what is right: iow what you want them to do.

True enough. But I make no bones about my own goal here: to be yanked up out of the hole that I am. Pertaining both to this side of the grave [moral nihilism] and to the other side of it [oblivion].

Most folks here know that if they engage me in a discussion and/or a debate, the trajectory will sooner or later get around to "how ought one to live?" in a No God world? As that pertains to either the OP or to any other context in which values come into conflict.

As that relates to this:

An exploration into the existential parameters of ones own particular set of political prejudices.

This part:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

This is how I -- "I" -- think about my own moral and political values as "existential contraptions". How then do others not think about their own in this manner?

Zero will either go there with respect to his own value judgments or he would be advised to avoid me here altogether.

After all, you and I had our own rather protracted exchanges here once, right? You basically pulled away from them after having given me your best shot.

And I will be the first one to admit that the problem there revolved around my own failure to grasp that your "pragmatic" frame of mind was more reasonable than my own. It just didn't sink in. I -- "I" -- am still as "fractured and fragmented" as ever.

Even in a world sans God sans objective values other people may very well have internal lives and goals of their own.

Okay, and they will either discuss this at length with regard to the value judgments they bring to the Trump/Putin relationship [on this thread] or they won't.

The "internal lives and goals" that particular individuals have here are in my view largely "existential contraptions" rooted in dasein. And that is no less true of Trump and Putin. They just happen to be in possession of the sort of power that could ramify the lives of literally millions of people.

So, are they moral objectivists more or less than they are moral nihilists? That might be an interesting discussion.

[Meno_]

And that closes or tries to close the circle between moral and ethical questions my friend , and that is OUR problem here basically and primarily.

[iambiguous]

wrong thread

[Meno_]

wrong thread

Not if definitions are recalculated according to pragmatic origins.

[Meno_]

There are 2 types of people.

The first can't learn from history and the second who can and to do so they use Leibnitz to use the tools of feedback to change the course of history
. Collusion is another word for the use of feedback.

But why am I arguing with You?

[Meno_]

Or. Am . I.?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Does he or does he not completely avoid the discussion that I wish to have with him?

You gotta get a handle on other people having their own goals in discussions. There is every chance he focuses on what he wants to just as you focus on what you want to.

I don't think you understand how it comes off like you think other people either are here to serve your purposes or are afraid of doing what is right: iow what you want them to do.

True enough.

Seriously, that would have been an nice end to the response.

But I make no bones about my own goal here: to be yanked up out of the hole that I am. Pertaining both to this side of the grave [moral nihilism] and to the other side of it [oblivion].

Most folks here know that if they engage me in a discussion and/or a debate, the trajectory will sooner or later get around to "how ought one to live?" in a No God world? As that pertains to either the OP or to any other context in which values come into conflict.

None of this relates to you labeling people avoiding doing things when they may very well simply be participating according to their own desires and goals.

yes, we know what you want. And in a world of compromise, negotiation, moderation, one notices that other people have other watns, and we do not act superior, if those are our values, which you often express as being yours, and label people in ways that do not show THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING INTEREST in compromise negotiation or moderation in a context where participants have a variety of goals, some, obviously, not the same as yours.

Does this mean to be consistant with your values, you must engage in the discussion as they want to? Not necessarily.

But labeling other people's behavior that does not fit with your desires as avoidance is unnecessary and does not fit with your values.

Why not live it instead of repeating it without living it?

After all, you and I had our own rather protracted exchanges here once, right? You basically pulled away from them after having given me your best shot.

That's a weird way to couch that. I would not say I pulled away after my best shot. I pulled away because in that thread you had a goal and I was not the right interlocutor.

And I will be the first one to admit that the problem there revolved around my own failure to grasp that your "pragmatic" frame of mind was more reasonable than my own. It just didn't sink in. I -- "I" -- am still as "fractured and fragmented" as ever.

OK.

Even in a world sans God sans objective values other people may very well have internal lives and goals of their own.

Okay, and they will either discuss this at length with regard to the value judgments they bring to the Trump/Putin relationship [on this thread] or they won't.

The "internal lives and goals" that particular individuals have here are in my view largely "existential contraptions" rooted in dasein. And that is no less true of Trump and Putin. They just happen to be in possession of the sort of power that could ramify the lives of literally millions of people.

Sure, I know how you view it. But the point is you labeled their behavior as if all behavior was either aligned with your goals or in avoidance. When in fact their motivations - existential contraptions or not - obviously could be something else. That's all.

See how simply acknowledging that is a response to what I said. True enough. Period. But you bring up your view of existential contraptions as if that is relevent. It's not. It may be relevant elsewher ein the thread, in fact I am sure it is. And certainly in other threads. And it is a priority for you.

But everytime you use anything that happens near you as if its only value is as a jumping off point for you to repeat positions - that you claim here we are aware of already - you are not showing your own values of moderation, consideration and negotiation.

You are a discussion partner who cannot negotiate a social or discussion space. To the extent that you cannot, in the case above, even conceive that someone's motivation for not doing what you want must be fear and avoidance.

You cannot even really see them as something other than a tool that helps you or does not help you with your goal.

So, are they moral objectivists more or less than they are moral nihilists? That might be an interesting discussion.

[/quote]
Sure, it certainly might be. And each person will have interests or lacks therein related to that. Them being people with different motivations than you, going about their own lives, that may or may not satisfy your desires.

And sure, some way well be avoiding something. But in your binary world they either serve you or are not as brave as you around these issues.

If someone cannot really conceive of others as perhaps being beyond his immediate binary interpretative abilities how can that someone possibly negotiation, be moderate and make compromises.

Is it just lip service when you present these as values that you yes also say are existential contraptions?

That was a rhtorical question.

[iambiguous]

wrong thread

Not if definitions are recalculated according to pragmatic origins.

I'll try that...

Nope, still wrong thread.

[iambiguous]

There are 2 types of people.

The first can't learn from history and the second who can and to do so they use Leibnitz to use the tools of feedback to change the course of history

Actually there are three. The two you note and those who suggest that what is either learned or not learned from history is embedded existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And [thus] that philosophers are impotent in determining that which all rational and virtuous people ought to learn from history.

Though that's just here on this planet.

And I'm not at all sure where Leibniz fits in here. This part for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

Collusion is another word for the use of feedback.

What's that make "conspiracy" then? One point of view: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/63436923 ... difference

But why am I arguing with You?

I'm more or less with PK on this one. On his thread [as I recall] he recently noted he had difficulty connecting the dots between what he has posted and what you posted in turn.

Same here. You often make points that [to me] seem to reflect that which I construe to be the sort of contributions the "serious philosophers" flock toward here. They sound "deep and insightful", but I can never quite grasp what the hell they have to do with the points that I am actually making.

Or so it seems to me.

You might consider bringing your own points [as I like to frame it] "down to earth".

[Meno_]

There are 2 types of people.

The first can't learn from history and the second who can and to do so they use Leibnitz to use the tools of feedback to change the course of history

Actually there are three. The two you note and those who suggest that what is either learned or not learned from history is embedded existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

And [thus] that philosophers are impotent in determining that which all rational and virtuous people ought to learn from history.

Though that's just here on this planet.

And I'm not at all sure where Leibniz fits in here. This part for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

Collusion is another word for the use of feedback.

What's that make "conspiracy" then? One point of view: https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/63436923 ... difference

But why am I arguing with You?

I'm more or less with PK on this one. On his thread [as I recall] he recently noted he had difficulty connecting the dots between what he has posted and what you posted in turn.

Same here. You often make points that [to me] seem to reflect that which I construe to be the sort of contributions the "serious philosophers" flock toward here. They sound "deep and insightful", but I can never quite grasp what the hell they have to do with the points that I am actually making.

Or so it seems to me.

You might consider bringing your own points [as I like to frame it] "down to earth".

--------------------------------------------------------------

The learned have subtypes, the ones who have been existentially embedded in Dasein, and those who have evolved to the level as to be able to calculate a schema whereby they can free themselves from embededness. So actually there are two types , and one more-subtype.

Leibnitz was the forerunner who was able to ground the third by the calculus of the middle ground. Both You and Peter hold to the synthetic Kantian middle which was already recalculated , so as to enable Kant to qualify it

The run down is very expansive , but feel that it is a way out from the pro lens posed.It was solved by Brower, an intuitionist , to support Hilbert. I'm adding the reference so as to avoid appearing presumptive.

I think many of most of these problems could be looked at, from this point , by calibration unto the balance needed to identify what's at hand, and to reduce some of the clutter dealing with 'existential contraptions.

That's the best I can do, Lamiguous, because this matter would take a very expansive /extensive work, but there is no harm in trying.

[iambiguous]

But I make no bones about my own goal here: to be yanked up out of the hole that I am. Pertaining both to this side of the grave [moral nihilism] and to the other side of it [oblivion].

Most folks here know that if they engage me in a discussion and/or a debate, the trajectory will sooner or later get around to "how ought one to live?" in a No God world? As that pertains to either the OP or to any other context in which values come into conflict.

None of this relates to you labeling people avoiding doing things when they may very well simply be participating according to their own desires and goals.

But: None of it relates here from your point of view. And I may well still be in the dark as to what that actually is. Or, you may still be in the dark as to what my own motivations and intentions are here. In particular exchanges though the communication will either become more in sync it won't.

But: I really don't expect that it will. The existential gaps are often just too great.

yes, we know what you want. And in a world of compromise, negotiation, moderation, one notices that other people have other watns, and we do not act superior, if those are our values, which you often express as being yours, and label people in ways that do not show THE SLIGHTEST FUCKING INTEREST in compromise negotiation or moderation in a context where participants have a variety of goals, some, obviously, not the same as yours.

Another exchange of abstractions. What you and I and others need to do [in my view] is to shift the exchange in the direction of a particular context. Here the thread revolves around Trump, Putin and collusion. What might "moderation, negotiation and compromise" look like in a discussion of that? We know that the hardcore objectivists [from both sides] aren't intertested in this. And the moral nihilists who own and operate the global economy are only interested [by and large] in a morality that revolves around "show me the money".

And my point is that even with respect to "democracy and the rule of law" I construe my own value judgements here as political prejudices rooted in the existential contraption that is my own actual "lived life".

How then does your own "I" fit into all of this re the OP?

But labeling other people's behavior that does not fit with your desires as avoidance is unnecessary and does not fit with your values.

Why not live it instead of repeating it without living it?

Back again to this: What conflicting behaviors in what particular context construed from what particular point of view?

What might be the limits of philosophy here?

After all, you and I had our own rather protracted exchanges here once, right? You basically pulled away from them after having given me your best shot.

That's a weird way to couch that. I would not say I pulled away after my best shot. I pulled away because in that thread you had a goal and I was not the right interlocutor.

Well, how has that changed here?

Trust me: my goal here is exactly the same. Is there or is there not a way for me to react to Trumpworld other than from down in the hole that "I" am in?

Even in a world sans God sans objective values other people may very well have internal lives and goals of their own.

Okay, and they will either discuss this at length with regard to the value judgments they bring to the Trump/Putin relationship [on this thread] or they won't.

The "internal lives and goals" that particular individuals have here are in my view largely "existential contraptions" rooted in dasein. And that is no less true of Trump and Putin. They just happen to be in possession of the sort of power that could ramify the lives of literally millions of people.

Sure, I know how you view it. But the point is you labeled their behavior as if all behavior was either aligned with your goals or in avoidance. When in fact their motivations - existential contraptions or not - obviously could be something else. That's all.

But I make it abundantly clear over and again that the labels themselves are in turn no less existential contraptions. I can only take out of others what I first put into them: "I". At least in the is/ought world. We either struggle to close the gaps in communication here or we give up and move on to others.

See how simply acknowledging that is a response to what I said. True enough. Period. But you bring up your view of existential contraptions as if that is relevent. It's not. It may be relevant elsewher ein the thread, in fact I am sure it is. And certainly in other threads. And it is a priority for you.

But everytime you use anything that happens near you as if its only value is as a jumping off point for you to repeat positions - that you claim here we are aware of already - you are not showing your own values of moderation, consideration and negotiation.

You are a discussion partner who cannot negotiate a social or discussion space. To the extent that you cannot, in the case above, even conceive that someone's motivation for not doing what you want must be fear and avoidance.

You cannot even really see them as something other than a tool that helps you or does not help you with your goal.

This is just back up in the clouds from my frame of mind. I'm unable to connect the dots between what I attempt to understand about this point and what I think I know about the world around me "here and now" from down in my hole.

Sure, I recognize that lots of folks here have little interest in an exchange with me. Why? Because...

1] my polemical bent rubs them the wrong way...I come off as unnecessarily provocative and confrontational
2] I am hopelessly repetitive in ever circling around what zinnat called my "groots"
3] my truly cynical and pessimistic philosophy radically deconstructs "I"; and on both sides of the grave

I come off as Nietzsche on steroids to some. Only Nietzsche's philosophy -- the will to power, the uberman -- is just another existential contraption to me.

[Meno_]

Lambigous,

I edited my blog in order not to upend Your correspondence with KT, presently ongoing. You may want to glance at it, for it contains some answers to Your previous blog.

[iambiguous]

The learned haa subtypes, the ones who have been existentially embedded in Dasein, and those who have evolved to the level as to be able to calculate a schema whereby they can free themselves from emnededness. So actually there are two types , and one more-subtype.

Leibnitz was the forerunner who was able to ground the third by the calculus of the middle ground. Both You and Peter hold to the synthetic Kantian middle which was already recalculated , so as to enable Kant to qualify it

The run down is very expansive , but feel that it is a way out from the pro lens posed.It was solved by Brower, an intuitionist , to support Hilbert. I'm adding the reference so as to avoid appearing presumptive.

See, you're doing it again.

Sure, from inside your head, this point may well be seen as clearly appropriate in responding to my points above. But, from inside my head, I don't really have a fucking clue as to what the hell it has to do with anything...let alone to my argument.

Let's try this...

How would your point here be reconfigured into a description of your own assessment of the OP?

And how do you see it as different from my point of view?

I'm not even entirely certain here that your posts are not just exercises in irony. Attempts to show just how irrelevant much of what passes for "serious philosophy" is pertaining to the actual lives that we live from day to day in interacting with others.

[Meno_]

No worries, remember the philosopher St James? Suddenly without warning he strangely disappeared or died which I doubt and You contested that at the time if I remember correctly.

I bring him up in connection to something relevant of what we are talking about here today.

The ideas of infinity were broadly and mathematically were discussed, and I bring that up in terms of defining wjat infinity is. (Bound , or unbound)

The point I am trying to make is, that I expressed my being an Intuitionist, and unfortunately they can only learn backwards-which is in direct opposition to "normal' progressive learning. The same kind of idea as with the Korean language reading and writing to what is customary. So that is a serious block not to be .minimized.

So that's part of I think Darling had against me. Not my fault.

At the same time, ALL learning has been mostly didactic, deductive up to at least Leibnitz through the Oxford language analysts of the 20th th century. That is confirming/confirming pro Len of a possible connection between the psychology of philosophy and vica versa.

Now to get to Your point.
Given what You have written, and based on the blocks between so called intuitionists and nihilist, it is not that there is no connection or, even affinity towards, but the missing pieces are more prone to be discovered by going back-to the source, and starting with that, but not teleologoxally or 'objectively'.

And that is where we both stand without knowing , or REAlizing IT.

What is that IT? Well that goes into an expansive and protracted field , which needs to be guaranteed , in order to become consensualised.

Emnededness(Polanyi) of whom I dreamed about 5 years ago, in an unseen albeit auditory dream, I honestly believe, and I recall You poo
Pooing it.

So if WE want to pursue this , we need other participants, so as to arrive at a consensual base.

The whole thing may only have one over reaching problem: the avaibiliry for the requisite time.

[iambiguous]

No worries, remember the philosopher St James? Suddenly without warning he strangely disappeared or died which I doubt and You contested that at the time if I remember correctly

Well, if James is still around and ever does show up on this thread, I'd ask him to connect the dots between Trump, Putin and the 2016 election [on the one hand], and RM/AO and the Real God [on the other].

[Meno_]

No worries, remember the philosopher St James? Suddenly without warning he strangely disappeared or died which I doubt and You contested that at the time if I remember correctly

Well, if James is still around and ever does show up on this thread, I'd ask him to connect the dots between Trump, Putin and the 2016 election [on the one hand], and RM/AO and the Real God [on the other].

Good luck with that!

But seriously, it would not be counter productive to dig deeper into the hole?

I'm up for it .

[iambiguous]

But seriously, it would not be counter productive to dig deeper into the hole?

It was never my intention to dig the hole in the first place. Instead, a set of circumstances beyond my control combined with my first "philosophical" encounter with "rival goods" began to deconstruct my own objectivist frame of mind.

And here I am now on this thread drawn and quartered by a reaction to Trump/Putin that I have come to construe basically as a particular set of political prejudices rooted existentially in "I".

No longer am I able to react to events of this sort with the self-righteous indignation of someone convinced that how he has come to understand the world around him reflects that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to emulate in turn.

But: Being "fractured and fragmented" in this manner is precisely the frame of mind that the objectivists among us are most intent on avoiding.

For some, Trump and Putin are "good", for others, "bad".

For me, however, here and now, value judgments of this sort have [by and large] become just prefabricated and ever refabricated "existential contraptions" configured and then reconfigured in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that will soon tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

"Me" in a nutshell now: https://youtu.be/aNUr__-VZeQ

Well, almost.

[Peter Kropotkin]

But seriously, it would not be counter productive to dig deeper into the hole?

It was never my intention to dig the hole in the first place. Instead, a set of circumstances beyond my control combined with my first "philosophical" encounter with "rival goods" began to deconstruct my own objectivist frame of mind.

And here I am now on this thread drawn and quartered by a reaction to Trump/Putin that I have come to construe basically as a particular set of political prejudices rooted existentially in "I".

No longer am I able to react to events of this sort with the self-righteous indignation of someone convinced that how he has come to understand the world around him reflects that which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to emulate in turn.

But: Being "fractured and fragmented" in this manner is precisely the frame of mind that the objectivists among us are most intent on avoiding.

For some, Trump and Putin are "good", for others, "bad".

For me, however, here and now, value judgments of this sort have [by and large] become just prefabricated and ever refabricated "existential contraptions" configured and then reconfigured in an essentially absurd and meaningless world that will soon tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

"Me" in a nutshell now: https://youtu.be/aNUr__-VZeQ

Well, almost.

K: I still have the ability to be outraged.... try it sometime......
reconnect with the world at large.....instead of inside of your head
thinking that dominates your thinking......

Kropotkin

[Meno_]

But is there basis to what You implied, Peter that perhaps he has no ability to do that, not on terms of being able , but in a sense similar to one wit's opinion , that we are past the point of 'kicking Trump out of office' ( In Lambigious's own nomenclature)?

Is there something puzzling to say that philosophical process It's self have afforded overcoming as a way out of existential pathos, not only in the literal sense as Nietzsche coined it. but , in the sense of how fractures in metaphysical development in the most basic forms , from its enlightenment beginnings , from pointillism through pointing -as its post modern counterpart &/or the point of demarcation from Husserl-Heidegger- through Sartre and beyond might be inaccessible to Lambig as a way reconciling them? Even if such a reconstruction was possible, without the bad idea of a flat out statement , like One can not return home again among the multitude?

Or is it that Lambig's fate fatale parallels the vainglory attempt to come to terms of what is happening to what some terms as almost cataclysmic events?

Are there not any 2 connections which could shadow each other nowadays?

Fatalists and nihilism make odd but necessary bedfellows?

I find that a repulsive attitude after almost 100 years of existentialism.

[Gloominary]

Democrats are putting on their tinfoil hats in droves.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Democrats are putting on their tinfoil hats in droves.

Tinfoil hats are clearly bipartisan.
I find it amazing that anyone still thinks that either the Democrats OR the Republicans are the problem.

In fact anyone who does has a tin hat that has fallen over their eyes and ears, but not yet, unfortunately, their mouths.

[iambiguous]

I still have the ability to be outraged.... try it sometime......
reconnect with the world at large.....instead of inside of your head
thinking that dominates your thinking......

Kropotkin

Despite our recent rather protracted exchange on your thread, your reaction here merely exposes [to me] how, in discussions of this sort, points of view often go in one ear and come out the other.

From my frame of mind, it's not about being outraged by Trump's policies, but the extent to which you manage to think yourself into believing that being ouraged is the moral and political obligation of all rational [and decent] human beings.

I once embedded my own outrage at conservatives in that sort of psychological contraption. And it felt great. They were simply wrong to think about immigration or abortion or gun control or animal rights or the role of government as they did. Why? Because we were simply right.

One of us...one of them.

All that is embedded in the "is/ought" world becomes but one more component of the "either/or" world. It was just a matter of choosing a partiular font: religion, reason, ideology, deontology, nature.

Hell, even if we lost a particular battle back then, we could always suckle on the comfort and the consolation embedded in the fact that we were either destined to win the war, or, even if we lost that too, we deserved to win it.

In other words, on our exchange from your thread, you seemed to pay lip-service to the idea that "for all practical purposes", we're right from our side and they're right from their side.

But when push comes to shove you seem to have much more invested in heaping scorn on those who don't share your own value judgments. Just as they have much invested in heaping scorn on you.

And, sure, given the enormity of the human pain and suffering that can result from policies we don't agree with, that's all perfectly understandable.

I simply don't have access to it the way I once did myself.

I'm still down in this hole [here and now] in a way that you are not. And the irony here -- well, one of them -- is that it was through philosophy itself that I came to think as I do. Moral nihilism [in a No God world] seems to be an entirely reasonable way in which to construe the existential juncture that embodies identity, value judgments and political economy.

[Gloominary]

Democrats are putting on their tinfoil hats in droves.

Tinfoil hats are clearly bipartisan.
I find it amazing that anyone still thinks that either the Democrats OR the Republicans are the problem.

In fact anyone who does has a tin hat that has fallen over their eyes and ears, but not yet, unfortunately, their mouths.

I agree, I don't identify as conservative, nor liberal, it's just liberals are more likely to criticize conservatives for being a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists than inversely, so I'm merely point out that, liberals do it too, whenever it's convenient.

[iambiguous]

From John Brennan's NYT opinion piece today: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/opin ... rance.html

Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion are, in a word, hogwash.

The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of “Trump Incorporated” attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets.

And then this question: Why?


Why did Trump do it?


The whole focus of the OP here in other words.