What will happen from the impeachment?

[laughing dog]

You are free to promote your conjectures as conjectures, but there is no evidence that more evidence against Trump will do anything to change the minds of senators or a significant number of voters.

I already provided conclusive evidence.

Where do you think you have done so? Your opinions or conjectures are not evidence of fact.

Your dehumanization of your opponents is just a bad idea. They are human.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Uh... what evidence do you have that Trump's sycophants in Congress would flip and rat him out if he shot someone on TV?

If you're joking, fair enough. But seriously, if you actually believe he would not be removed for that, you are massively mistaken about the psychology of your opponents. This is of course an extremely common trait among people committed to an ideology and/or political cause, but there is not much I can do to help, just as laughing dog fails to see the evidence provided by the fact that Republican voters are human. Dehumanizing your opponents is not a good idea.

Don't shoot the messenger. They have been dehumanizing themselves.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Emerson's poll is out of whack. I saw another one that had Inds supporting impeachment 2 to 1, which itself was out of whack with what the polls are generally showing, a plurality of independents supporting impeachment.

Emerson's poll may be out of whack in the numbers, but not in the trend. Also, the most recent YouGov poll shows a plurality against removal (which is what actually matters), even if also a plurality is in favor of impeachment. Regardless, any plurality here (one way or another) is a slim one, so let's say that a plurality support removal, the points I was making remain. It doesn't really make a significant difference in that context whether it's 40-35 for removal and the rest undecided, or 35-40 and the rest undecided (or similar numbers).

The trouble is President Trump could literally shot a man in the street and 40% would be against impeachment.

Fear that removing Trump from office will cause Trump to retaliate and tell his supporters to boycott the election? There is already enough evidence of obstruction of justice (Mueller Report) and abuse of power (transcript) to remove this ass from office.

No, more like fear that regardless of what Trump does, if he is removed a pro-Trump candidate accusing them of backstabbing would beat them in the primaries.

Who? Stephen Miller?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are free to promote your conjectures as conjectures, but there is no evidence that more evidence against Trump will do anything to change the minds of senators or a significant number of voters.

I already provided conclusive evidence. Your dehumanization of your opponents is just a bad idea. They are human.

So were the people saluting Benito Mussolini.

 

[Elixir]

Uh... what evidence do you have that Trump's sycophants in Congress would flip and rat him out if he shot someone on TV?

If you're joking, fair enough. But seriously, if you actually believe he would not be removed for that, you are massively mistaken about the psychology of your opponents.

Tell me about the psychology of Trump supporters and their representatives, PLEASE!
Trump's supporters don't seem to mind him abandoning allies on the battlefield to be murdered by the hundreds and thousands, ripping innocent children and babies from their parents and sticking them in cages, backing the murder of American journalists who criticize authoritarian leaders of countries where Trump has investments, etc etc etc. Trumpsuckers' representatives are rather muted in their objections to any of that, if they even have any objection.
Why would they object to some "human scum" (as he says), being shot on tv? A relatively minor offense. I mean, if it was a congressman who was murdered then maybe the elected trumpsters would balk, since that might look personally threatening. But shooting some run-of-the-mill "trump hater"? I sincerely think the trump voters would celebrate and their representatives would stand right behind them. I mean, maybe he'd lose a few points in the polls if it was particularly bloody and gruesome television, but it would have to be REALLY gross to offend them. I don't think the networks would air it in that event. If it was a "clean" shot through the heart without a lot of spatter, it would probably give him a bump.

That's how horrible this INDIVIDUAL-1 really is, just going by the evidence.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's so much more that could be included in how Trump and his base dehumanize themselves...

I cannot possibly cover it all, but it's Twitler who brought up himself shooting someone and getting away with it. He's the guy approving of violence....killing whistleblowers...and most recently approving soldiers photo ops with corpses of the enemy. The conservative legacy itself is a culture that promotes violence, authoritarianism, and in the last conservative administration--torture. These are the most hardcore supporters of the conservative movement and they reach out and grow their toxic culture with The Chosen One at the helm. Pointing out that these people are dehumanizing themselves is not dehumanizing them, it's merely stating a fact. A rational observer ought not be blamed for stating an observed fact.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

All the evidence is simply fabricated by the Deep State, thus it doesn't matter. Thou shalt not attack God's agent here on Earth! (Never mind that he smells of sulfur.)

Nice example, but in the case of Christians, it is very difficult to add more evidence against Christianity. They already failed to make a proper assessment, and so how do you add more? It's a challenge. But consider YECs. Nearly all will reject the evidence for evolution. But then, in my experience, they actually do not understand evolution, and they keep having false beliefs about the evidence too. Christians who actually do study evolution and understand it (e.g., if they go to college and study it properly, but even if they study it on their own online and really get it), in nearly all cases are not YECs - if they were before, they have already changed their flavor of Christianity by now.

There are some things that also persuade Christians to change faith-based views, even if a lot more evidence is needed than what would be rationally required. For example, if they have studied the Bible as a text with multiple authors, read the different versions, etc., it's almost certain that - assuming they understood - they are not inerrantists (if they were, they no longer are).

Now, getting them to abandon Christianity is almost impossible. But it's not that no amount of evidence would do. At least, it seems from other examples (even current religious leaders) that enough evidence will do, but too much is needed (more than we have).

What on earth are you talking about?

You are ascribing to your opponents behaviors that are not usual among humans. Humans behave irrationally and are not persuaded by evidence that should persuade them, but they generally are not completely impervious to evidence. That would be very rare. The trouble is one would need much more than what is rationally required.

Don't shoot the messenger. They have been dehumanizing themselves.

The dehumanization of Republicans is done by Democrats and left-wingers nearly always. Of course, the dehumanization goes both ways (or rather, multiple ways), but that's no better.

The trouble is President Trump could literally shot a man in the street and 40% would be against impeachment.

In the exchange, we are talking about 40-35 (in one direction or another) of independents.

That aside, no, he can't. Well, of course you can come up with a scenario in which he shoots a terrorist trying to kill his wife or whatever, but seriously, if he were to just randomly shoot a man on the street - or a baby, or whatever - of course he'd be removed.

Who? Stephen Miller?

No, any of the strongly pro-Trump Republicans who do not have the support to run for the Senate with serious chances for now.

So were the people saluting Benito Mussolini.

Yes, they were. And in most cases, they were not completely impervious to evidence, even if they were being epistemically irrational. Epistemic irrationality comes in degrees, and it's rarely absolute. There are cases like that, but not all cases are like that.

Tell me about the psychology of Trump supporters and their representatives, PLEASE!

Well, first of all, they have human psychology.

Trump's supporters don't seem to mind him abandoning allies on the battlefield to be murdered by the hundreds and thousands, ripping innocent children and babies from their parents and sticking them in cages, backing the murder of American journalists who criticize authoritarian leaders of countries where Trump has investments, etc etc etc. Trumpsuckers' representatives are rather muted in their objections to any of that, if they even have any objection.
Why would they object to some "human scum" (as he says), being shot on tv? A relatively minor offense. I mean, if it was a congressman who was murdered then maybe the elected trumpsters would balk, since that might look personally threatening. But shooting some run-of-the-mill "trump hater"? I sincerely think the trump voters would celebrate and their representatives would stand right behind them. I mean, maybe he'd lose a few points in the polls if it was particularly bloody and gruesome television, but it would have to be REALLY gross to offend them. I don't think the networks would air it in that event. If it was a "clean" shot through the heart without a lot of spatter, it would probably give him a bump.

That's how horrible this INDIVIDUAL-1 really is, just going by the evidence.

Dehumaization much?

But still, suppose then he were to shoot a 4 years old kid. Do you actually think that that would not convince Trump supporters, for the most part?
Then what if he were to rape a 4 years old girl, then shoot her in the face?
You still think that that would not do it.

Of course, some amount of evidence would do it (much more than what is rationally required, though much less than what you might (or might not even) think they'd accept). At any rate, this is a bit of a moot point. Regardless of how much evidence would be required, the point is that the evidence given so far does not suffice. Trump will not be removed by the Senate on the current amount of evidence.

I cannot possibly cover it all, but it's Twitler who brought up himself shooting someone and getting away with it. He's the guy approving of violence....killing whistleblowers...and most recently approving soldiers photo ops with corpses of the enemy.

Recall that he is talking about killing the enemy. Think about killing kids deliberately. Now consider raping them first. Obviously, some amount of evidence against Trump would do it (much more than what is rationally required, though much less than what you might (or might not even) think they'd accept), as I said above.

Pointing out that these people are dehumanizing themselves is not dehumanizing them, it's merely stating a fact.

Ascribing to them a sort of mindset uncharacteristic of humans is dehumanizing them (I was talking about the idea that no amount of evidence would do. That is extremely rare. Of course, sometimes the amount of evidence that would suffice is not and will not be available. In this case, very probably it won't, but this whole tangent began with my pointing out that Democrats would not be able to get Trump removed with the amount of evidence they have provided, and they would need far more against him).

 

[fromderinside]

Nixon: First there was the break-in. Then there was the cover up. Trump: first there was the bribe. Now we are beginning to see the outlines of a developing cover up.

To wit: Shake down, shake down, shake down. Whoops. There's a Whistleblower complaint

They know what's being attempted in Ukraine. Release the money, Release the money. There is no justification for holding up the money. Gotta find legal grounds, invent legal grounds, etc, etc, etc.

Too late too late: The emails go round and round and another one gets brought to ground and another one gets brought to ground and...

The big wheel keeps on turning. Proud Trump keeps on burin', Rolling Rolling, Rolling up the Briber.

Want to find the one who set off Power grab? Check fingers for smell of Pussy.

And Orbison sang "It's over, it's over, it's over ....

[video=youtube;1iABFZGzEjY]https://www.youtube.com[/video]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nice example, but in the case of Christians, it is very difficult to add more evidence against Christianity. They already failed to make a proper assessment, and so how do you add more? It's a challenge. But consider YECs. Nearly all will reject the evidence for evolution. But then, in my experience, they actually do not understand evolution, and they keep having false beliefs about the evidence too. Christians who actually do study evolution and understand it (e.g., if they go to college and study it properly, but even if they study it on their own online and really get it), in nearly all cases are not YECs - if they were before, they have already changed their flavor of Christianity by now.

There are some things that also persuade Christians to change faith-based views, even if a lot more evidence is needed than what would be rationally required. For example, if they have studied the Bible as a text with multiple authors, read the different versions, etc., it's almost certain that - assuming they understood - they are not inerrantists (if they were, they no longer are).

Now, getting them to abandon Christianity is almost impossible. But it's not that no amount of evidence would do. At least, it seems from other examples (even current religious leaders) that enough evidence will do, but too much is needed (more than we have).


You are ascribing to your opponents behaviors that are not usual among humans. Humans behave irrationally and are not persuaded by evidence that should persuade them, but they generally are not completely impervious to evidence. That would be very rare. The trouble is one would need much more than what is rationally required.

Don't shoot the messenger. They have been dehumanizing themselves.

The dehumanization of Republicans is done by Democrats and left-wingers nearly always. Of course, the dehumanization goes both ways (or rather, multiple ways), but that's no better.

The trouble is President Trump could literally shot a man in the street and 40% would be against impeachment.

In the exchange, we are talking about 40-35 (in one direction or another) of independents.

That aside, no, he can't. Well, of course you can come up with a scenario in which he shoots a terrorist trying to kill his wife or whatever, but seriously, if he were to just randomly shoot a man on the street - or a baby, or whatever - of course he'd be removed.

Who? Stephen Miller?

No, any of the strongly pro-Trump Republicans who do not have the support to run for the Senate with serious chances for now.

So were the people saluting Benito Mussolini.

Yes, they were. And in most cases, they were not completely impervious to evidence, even if they were being epistemically irrational. Epistemic irrationality comes in degrees, and it's rarely absolute. There are cases like that, but not all cases are like that.

Tell me about the psychology of Trump supporters and their representatives, PLEASE!

Well, first of all, they have human psychology.

Trump's supporters don't seem to mind him abandoning allies on the battlefield to be murdered by the hundreds and thousands, ripping innocent children and babies from their parents and sticking them in cages, backing the murder of American journalists who criticize authoritarian leaders of countries where Trump has investments, etc etc etc. Trumpsuckers' representatives are rather muted in their objections to any of that, if they even have any objection.
Why would they object to some "human scum" (as he says), being shot on tv? A relatively minor offense. I mean, if it was a congressman who was murdered then maybe the elected trumpsters would balk, since that might look personally threatening. But shooting some run-of-the-mill "trump hater"? I sincerely think the trump voters would celebrate and their representatives would stand right behind them. I mean, maybe he'd lose a few points in the polls if it was particularly bloody and gruesome television, but it would have to be REALLY gross to offend them. I don't think the networks would air it in that event. If it was a "clean" shot through the heart without a lot of spatter, it would probably give him a bump.

That's how horrible this INDIVIDUAL-1 really is, just going by the evidence.

Dehumaization much?

But still, suppose then he were to shoot a 4 years old kid. Do you actually think that that would not convince Trump supporters, for the most part?
Then what if he were to rape a 4 years old girl, then shoot her in the face?
You still think that that would not do it.

Of course, some amount of evidence would do it (much more than what is rationally required, though much less than what you might (or might not even) think they'd accept). At any rate, this is a bit of a moot point. Regardless of how much evidence would be required, the point is that the evidence given so far does not suffice. Trump will not be removed by the Senate on the current amount of evidence.

I cannot possibly cover it all, but it's Twitler who brought up himself shooting someone and getting away with it. He's the guy approving of violence....killing whistleblowers...and most recently approving soldiers photo ops with corpses of the enemy.

Recall that he is talking about killing the enemy. Think about killing kids deliberately. Now consider raping them first. Obviously, some amount of evidence against Trump would do it (much more than what is rationally required, though much less than what you might (or might not even) think they'd accept), as I said above.

Pointing out that these people are dehumanizing themselves is not dehumanizing them, it's merely stating a fact.

Ascribing to them a sort of mindset uncharacteristic of humans* is dehumanizing them (I was talking about the idea that no amount of evidence would do. That is extremely rare. Of course, sometimes the amount of evidence that would suffice is not and will not be available. In this case, very probably it won't, but this whole tangent began with my pointing out that Democrats would not be able to get Trump removed with the amount of evidence they have provided, and they would need far more against him).

*Huh? What is uncharacteristic of humans?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

*Huh? What is uncharacteristic of humans?

For example, being insensitive to any amount of evidence. People committed to an ideology/religion/political cause, etc., are often epistemically irrational to a degree that depend on the case. Their irrationality results in their failing to realize that their favorite views are unwarranted (and often false), and usually they never change their minds because the amount of evidence that would be required to persuade them is far more not only than what would be rationally required, but than what is available as well, but it is very rare for them to be epistemically irrational to any arbitrary degree so that no amount of evidence - no matter what it is - would persuade them (it can happen, but it requires a level of mental damage that is not encountered in most Republicans and/or Trump supporters).

 

[laughing dog]

You are ascribing to your opponents behaviors that are not usual among humans. Humans behave irrationally and are not persuaded by evidence that should persuade them, but they generally are not completely impervious to evidence. That would be very rare. The trouble is one would need much more than what is rationally required.

Since I did not claim anyone was impervious to evidence, your claim is a straw man.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Since I did not claim anyone was impervious to evidence, your claim is a straw man.

Actually you said:

You are free to promote your conjectures as conjectures, but there is no evidence that more evidence against Trump will do anything to change the minds of senators or a significant number of voters.

The fact that they're human is evidence (plus some other stuff I pointed out). Or else, the fact that they're human is taken as background so that the prior is high enough that you would need evidence against it.

In any event, this remains a side point, for the following reason: I'm saying that Democrats would need a lot more evidence against Trump to get the Senate to remove him - but it's extremely probable that such evidence will not be forthcoming -, whereas you're saying that no evidence would do. Well, regardless, we seem to agree that he will (at least I'd say extremely probably) not get removed.

 

[Elixir]

Dehumaization much?

No, not at all. Trump follows the most base of human impulses. It is odd but not particularly rare for a person to do that to the exclusion of more complex behavior...

But still, suppose then he were to shoot a 4 years old kid. Do you actually think that that would not convince Trump supporters, for the most part?

If it was on live TV, then probably. Otherwise I'm not sure about "the most" part. Some part perhaps. "That wasn't me in the video and besides, it was self defense! The kid was black, it was dark and she had a rattle. I thought it was a gun! I mean, if it was me in the video that's what I would have thought."

Then what if he were to rape a 4 years old girl, then shoot her in the face?
You still think that that would not do it.

Again, you mean on camera? Even then...
"Fake video. I never met that girl. And besides it was consensual and her parents signed an NDA"

Very human psychopathic impulses.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If it was on live TV, the probably. Otherwise I'm not sure about "the most" part. Some part perhaps. "That wasn't me in the video and besides, it was self defense! The kid was black, it was dark and she had a rattle. I thought it was a gun! I mean, if it was me in the video that's what I would have thought."

Then what if he were to rape a 4 years old girl, then shoot her in the face?
You still think that that would not do it.

Again, you mean on camera? Even then...
"Fake video. I never met that girl. And besides it was consensual and her parents signed an NDA"

Very human psychopathic impulses.

Again, dehumanizing much?
Purely for example, there is no way that they would accept a claim like "Fake video. I never met that girl. And besides it was consensual and her parents signed an NDA" (as long of course as there is conclusive evidence that the video is not fake, like corroborating forensic evidence, other cameras, witness accounts, etc.). Nearly all Senators would turn on him, explaining how disgusted they are. Most voters would too. Only "fake video" might work, though it would not if there were enough witnesses that are generally considered reliable by the people to whom the evidence is presented. But by saying something like "Fake video. I never met that girl. And besides it was consensual and her parents signed an NDA", seriously suggesting that they would accept it, you paint a caricature of your opponents.

And no, it is not a particular characteristic of human psychopaths to fail to respond to evidence while following a charismatic leader. I suppose you could argue that it's something like humans in a cult, but if you think that people who voted for Trump have in general a cult level of commitment, you are also if not dehumanizing still just attacking a caricature villain.

 

[fromderinside]

Unlike most of the rest here I think Trump will resign when the drip drip drip of proven allegations drives Republicans to go to Trump and tell him he is going to be impeached if he doesn't resign.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

*Huh? What is uncharacteristic of humans?

For example, being insensitive to any amount of evidence. People committed to an ideology/religion/political cause, etc., are often epistemically irrational to a degree that depend on the case. Their irrationality results in their failing to realize that their favorite views are unwarranted (and often false), and usually they never change their minds because the amount of evidence that would be required to persuade them is far more not only than what would be rationally required, but than what is available as well, but it is very rare for them to be epistemically irrational to any arbitrary degree so that no amount of evidence - no matter what it is - would persuade them (it can happen, but it requires a level of mental damage that is not encountered in most Republicans and/or Trump supporters).

What are you talking about? Most people on the planet are religious and irrational. It's an observable fact. We are lucky when we can be rational and it requires far more than just throwing evidence at them. People have to want to make inferences, they have to stop putting stock in faith which most conservatives have a hard time with, but more importantly there is a whole conservative media machine and echo chamber that facts don't necessarily make it into and if they do they come with a frame. Seeking out primary sources, spending enormous time going through them, and thinking critically are a rare combination of traits. Pretending those rare traits are collectively common in humans is dehumanizing humans and ignoring the postmodern environment humans operate within.

Of course it's also true that many humans have some capacity for reason. But I am not sure how you can quantify chatacteristics of people into making a prediction. My own prediction isn't about quantifying voters but instead looking at politicians, their self-intetest, and how they could try to have their cake and eat it, too...which is why my thought is they will settle on a meaningless censure.

 

[Trausti]

If it weren't for impeachment we'd all be having a lot of fun with the fact that Joe Biden's crackhead son fathered a love child with an Arkansas stripper named "dallas" while cheating on his dead brother's widow.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If it weren't for impeachment we'd all be having a lot of fun with the fact that Joe Biden's crackhead son fathered a love child with an Arkansas stripper named "dallas" while cheating on his dead brother's widow.

Thanks, but the world is having more fun watching a traitorous pedophile mass murderer daughter rapist—and the cucks who hungrily suck his pathetic cock—get eviscerated by his own tiny hands on a now hourly basis.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Elixir]

What conservotards see:


What's actually there:


No wonder so many of their posts are such specious nonsense.