True
‘The Wind and the Lion’
Missed
Biggie won’t even lay out what he considers facts, so there’s never any need to debate squat with him.
You’re prejudiced. You’re biased.
You rationalize. You find excuses.
You’re more interested in confirming your beliefs than anything else.
It’s literally impossible to present facts to you.
All can easily be said about you or anybody. But what’s interesting about you is you have a pattern of overlooking the valid arguments as if plausible answers to your questions were never given. For example,
I wrote
Phyllo wrote
You hedged with your own bias rather than addressing perfectly valid reasons why the number would be lower. To address what I wrote, why wouldn’t many have fled when they learned that they were to be persecuted? Then add the fact that there was no census for 20 years, again more relocation could have occurred. What’s not valid about my reasoning? Oh it’s not valid because I’m biased…no…no, it’s an insane rationalization completely impossible.
No disclaimer or sign of humility and you are an objectivist.
The meek shall inherit the earth.
But I may be wrong.
See, I’m trying to make amends for my past sins.
In time, I too, will be a subjectivist follower of uniformity.
The desired goal.
Then they would have been accounted for in another location.
You seem to think that the people who look at this census data are so dimwitted that they don’t realize that to be a possibility.
First, of course, even the facts cited here from both sides are derived almost entirely from the news media. None of us were actually there when Trump did his thing with Ukraine.
And I could pile up what I construe to be the facts most closely aligned with my own political prejudices. As, for example, Phyllo did above. But they wouldn’t be the right facts because they are not aligned with yours.
Besides, I suspect that with objectivists of your ilk here, your facts revolve more around this…
…then in any truly sincere attempt to get to the bottom of whether in fact it is rational that Trump was impeached.
As though, philosophically, that can actually be epistemologically deduced and then empirically demonstrated.
You either want to live in an America where the president does whatever he/she chooses or you want to live in an America where there are limits to what a president can do.
Discuss which limits, if any, are reasonable.
Is “he makes me laugh” a good reason to allow a president to do whatever?
Whether this is expressed ironically or not, it is basically applicable to all objectivists. You know, in my opinion.
One could be discussing impeachment with Joker, or Communism with you.
The facts are only there to be accumulated into an existential contraption that reinforces political prejudices that are derived experientially from the life that you lived.
And it is from this frame of mind that the “real me” is intertwined in the “right thing to do” in order to generate and to sustain the psychological comfort and consolation derived from convincing yourself that the facts are there to back you up. And only you.
Then it’s just a matter of having or not having the intellectual honesty and integrity to accept that about your own moral and political value judgments.
You know, if this in fact is actually true.
In any event, you only have to convince each other what the facts tell us. While, in tandem, coming after me for fucking up your oh so soothing is/ought qua either/or political agendas.
Is there any point in trying to explain to you all the problems with this post?
No. It would be a complete waste of time.
Whether this is expressed ironically or not, it is basically applicable to all objectivists. You know, in my opinion.
One could be discussing impeachment with Joker, or Communism with you.
The facts are only there to be accumulated into an existential contraption that reinforces political prejudices that are derived experientially from the life that you lived.
And it is from this frame of mind that the “real me” is intertwined in the “right thing to do” in order to generate and to sustain the psychological comfort and consolation derived from convincing yourself that the facts are there to back you up. And only you.
Then it’s just a matter of having or not having the intellectual honesty and integrity to accept that about your own moral and political value judgments.
You know, if this in fact is actually true.
In any event, you only have to convince each other what the facts tell us. While, in tandem, coming after me for fucking up your oh so soothing is/ought qua either/or political agendas.
[/quote]
So you keep telling me. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
And that’s just so far.
Come on, my friend, if you don’t want to be shot, get out of the barrel. 
You have thoroughly thrashed me. I acknowledge that you are superior to me in every way. Please withdraw and let me recover from this beating.
I’m not a fan of Trump, he didn’t live up to his populist rhetoric.
That being said, all presidents are corrupt.
Temporarily withholding millions from Ukraine while trying to dig dirt up on senile, creepy Joe’s son pales in comparison to the economic and war crimes committed by the previous two admins.
Meanwhile the liberal establishment has bought Facebook, google and twitter and are using them to de-platform conservatives, curtailing freedom of speech.
They’re not going after him for his corruption, they’re going after him because they’re worried about what he’s uncovered or he’ll uncover about their corruption, among other things.
They’ve been slinging mud at Trump since day one to see if anything’d stick, and so far nothing really has.
They’re desperately behind in their own polls and they’re willing to sacrifice the economy (not that it’s good, the middle and working class have been in decline since the 80s, but that’s a systemic issue, not an issue specific to the current admin) and sociopolitical stability over something that doesn’t affect ordinary Americans, only dems.
In rhetoric, candidate Trump was a maverick, in reality, president Trump is a moderate, but they don’t like him because of what he represents to ordinary Americans: their desire to take a nationalist turn, like the UK, Italy, Poland, Hungary and other western countries.
To put ordinary Americans ahead of the plutocrats on the one hand, and foreigners, immigrants and minorities on the other.
Unfortunately Trump never did that, but they still hate him.
Okay, but Wendy stays in the barrel!!
Or maybe they don’t hate him and they’re just feigning to.
They have to keep the political theatre going.
In practice they’re all about the same.
In any case, let’s take a closer look at the left side of the aisle:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/11/hunter-biden-democrats-joe-biden-ukraine-trump
And I’m sure dems never pulled strings to dig dirt up on their opponents (assuming that’s what Trump did). 
I don’t think the evidently-huge fissures within each Party’s supporters is helping either Party, in finding a common narrative. Now… if I said anymore, you’d have to start paying me for my ideas. ; )
Not dimwitted, only part of the racket to inflate the numbers. One would literally have to sift through all the census data from every country from 1930-1950 (which either doesn’t exist or is not made public) and take into account some loss of life due to accidental deaths and old age. If census reports for many countries don’t exist, how did they get their information? They made it up. Made it up just like the Russia hoax.
That’s your bias.
No shit?? 
Census is only a part of the puzzle. Company reports, accounting ledgers, railway records, etc are some other pieces.
Maybe you’re making that up.
ok, the oath of the president…
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of the President of the United States, and will to the best
of my ability preserve, protect and defend the constitution
of the United States”
under article two, section 3, it is stated
……“he shall take care that the laws to be faithfully executed”…
Now this clause demands that he observes that the laws be faithfully
executed…….in other words, if he violates the law, he is violating
his oath as President… as he is to “take care that the laws are
to be faithfully executed”…now to the point of his breaking the
laws… He has willfully violated the law by refusing to allow
his staff to answer the lawful subpoenas of congress…a subpoena is a
written order to compel an individual to give testimony on a particular
subject, often before a court, but sometimes in other proceedings,
(such as an congressional inquiries)… recall that during the Clinton
administration that Susan McDougal went to prison for 18 months
for civil contempt for not answering a congressional subpoena…
thus there is historical precedence for such an act of violating
the lawful, lawful subpoena of the Congress…
thus he has willfully violated his oath of office, he has refused
to turn over documents also subpoenaed by congress… thus once
again violating his oath of office, violating the constitution…
now one may argue that these are minor violations of the law,
but note in the very language of the constitution, that the President
is not given a choice as to what laws he may or may not obey…
he is expected to faithfully execute the laws… regardless if he
approves of the law or not… he cannot pick and choose which
laws he shall obey…
congress has within its congressional rights has ask for IQ45 taxes…
he has refused and thus once again he has violated the law…
it doesn’t matter if he feels that lies outside of congressional
rights, the law must be obeyed… any time, any time,
he violates the law, he is violating his constitutional mandated
oath of office…
he has ignored the constitutional emolument clause of Article two,
section 7…
“the president shall, at stated times, receive for his services,
a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor,
diminished during the period for which he shall have
been elected, and HE SHALL NOT RECIEVED WITHIN THAT
PERIOD ANY OTHER ENOLUMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES
OR ANY OF THEM”
In other words, he cannot receive any additional income based
upon his being president or he is in violation of the constitution…
he has received millions of dollars, taxpayers dollars,
when he goes to his hotels and receives benefits from
owning that hotel… for example, the secret service must
pay millions of dollars to use his hotels, money that comes
from taxpayers… he directly has benefited from taxpayers money
going into his hotels…that is in direct violation of
the emolument clause of the constitution… he is using his position
as president to receive income from the United States…
if he breaks the law or allows the law to be broken, he is
in direct violation of the constitution that “he faithfully executes
the office of President of the United States”……
as for the first article of impeachment, that he willfully
acted as “an abuse of his office” that can be shown by his
demand that other countries investigate person or persons
involved in elections… in other words, by proclaiming that
Russia should go after Hilary’s e-mails, he is asking for
a foreign power to interfere with our elections…
he has directly ask China to investigate the Biden’s, he
has asked the Ukraine to investigate the Biden’s… he
has admitted it, Mick Mulvaney admitted this, Rudy
admitted it… he has confessed to asking a foreign power
to interfere with upcoming elections to benefit himself…
and that is the key, to benefit himself…
that is in violation of his oath of office…
“to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States”
to actively engage in subverting the rights of Americans
to have a free and fair elections is to actively engage
in violating his oath “to preserve, protect and defend”
this is not only an engagement in violating the letter of the
law, the constitution but the spirit of the constitution…
a president is to put America first and IQ45 has clearly and without
any argument, has put himself first…… you cannot call for an investigation
into your political rival by an foreign government and still make any
claim that you are putting “America first”…
if at any point, you put your personal claims ahead of your congressional
or constitutional requirements, you are not putting America first, you are
not obeying the constitution which means you are breaking the law…
the highest law in the land is the original law which is the constitution…
and any violation, any violation of the original law of the land,
the constitution, is a direct violation of your oath of office…
if you willfully break the law, and IQ45 has clearly broke both
the letter of the constitution and the spirit of the constitution…
you then have broken the law… and you should be impeached for
your violations of the law… you must, must obey the laws as
your have made an oath to do so…
Kropotkin