Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[blackshoe]

Gun controls may prevent any of these, or at least make them less deadly.

Or they may not. Seems to me not is more likely.

[RedSpawn]

Trending on FB among Trump supporters:

 

TURD is ABSURD

Sigh....how is that trending on Facebook? It has more labels and warnings than a prescription drug commercial! As a nation, we need more town hall meetings and honest discussions and less reality TV showdowns and social media putdowns.

 

We are appealing to the lowest common denominator by stereotyping the left as beyond reason. We in the industry call this the ad hominem logical fallacy. http://cdn.churchm.ag/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Logical-Fallacies-ad-hominem.jpg

[barmar]

I guess I am gullible! My understanding is that Scalise is still in critical condition from a gunshot would. Do you have other information?

The real proof of your gullibility is that you thought he was being serious. He even ended the post with a smiley!

 

No wonder you can't tell fake news and conspiracy theories from fact.

[kenberg]

Trending on FB among Trump supporters:

 

 

 

I have a FB account. I don't read it. This thread is more than enough for me. Becky let's me know if there is a picture of a grandchild up.

 

As to the stuff you quote: An ugly attempt to be cute? It usually is just ugly.

 

Anyway, I have not been posting much. There is very little going on that I find even remotely pleasant to talk about. Ugly is ugly.

[ldrews]

The real proof of your gullibility is that you thought he was being serious. He even ended the post with a smiley!

 

No wonder you can't tell fake news and conspiracy theories from fact.

 

Now wasn't that a gratuitous smear? Did I provoke you in some way, or are you always this nasty?

[diana_eva]

I have a FB account. I don't read it. This thread is more than enough for me. Becky let's me know if there is a picture of a grandchild up.

 

As to the stuff you quote: An ugly attempt to be cute? It usually is just ugly.

 

Anyway, I have not been posting much. There is very little going on that I find even remotely pleasant to talk about. Ugly is ugly.

 

Yep it's just a joke. I found it funny. It's fascinating that both sides argue "look at the facts, fake news are brainwashing us" yet the facts are so different for each camp.

[kenberg]

Yep it's just a joke. I found it funny. It's fascinating that both sides argue "look at the facts, fake news are brainwashing us" yet the facts are so different for each camp.

 

This shows the dangers of online stuff. I had not understood you thought it funny.

 

It's the day in day out no relief insight nature of what is going on. A page back I linked to an interview:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/rivals-baseball-field-congressmen-share-solidarity-shooting/

A couple of decent guys doing their best.

This simple approach to life is becoming rare. Or maybe not rare, just crowded out by news of other sorts.

Everyone seems to be spoiling for a fight.

I find it depressing, but also I just get really tired of it. Which is not quite the same thing.

 

Maybe it comes to this: Th e president brings the head of the FBI into his office, sends everyone else away, and tells the FBI head that he hopes he can bring the investigation of his, the president's, friend to an end. I don't want to discuss with someone how this is to be understood. It is beyond my capacity to see how this could be misunderstood. I do not need to know who the president is or which party he is from to understand what is being said. I would feel silly discussing it, I find it frustrating that some see a need for discussion. So this makes me a TURD? Ok. Fine. I think I need to leave now, I have to mow the grass. Or something. Not continue in a hopeless discussion.

[RedSpawn]

Yep it's just a joke. I found it funny. It's fascinating that both sides argue "look at the facts, fake news are brainwashing us" yet the facts are so different for each camp.

It was funny, especially the TURD part.

 

I hate to wax philosophical but facts are pieces of information used as evidence. Facts are facts but evidence must be interpreted and is subject to confirmation bias.

 

That's why two people can get the same facts/data and arrive at markedly different conclusions. We are complicated people with simple biases.

http://b2bdigital.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Young_Lady_Old_Woman_Content.jpg

[Winstonm]

This shows the dangers of online stuff. I had not understood you thought it funny.

 

It's the day in day out no relief insight nature of what is going on. A page back I linked to an interview:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/rivals-baseball-field-congressmen-share-solidarity-shooting/

A couple of decent guys doing their best.

This simple approach to life is becoming rare. Or maybe not rare, just crowded out by news of other sorts.

Everyone seems to be spoiling for a fight.

I find it depressing, but also I just get really tired of it. Which is not quite the same thing.

 

Maybe it comes to this: Th e president brings the head of the FBI into his office, sends everyone else away, and tells the FBI head that he hopes he can bring the investigation of his, the president's, friend to an end. I don't want to discuss with someone how this is to be understood. It is beyond my capacity to see how this could be misunderstood. I do not need to know who the president is or which party he is from to understand what is being said. I would feel silly discussing it, I find it frustrating that some see a need for discussion. So this makes me a TURD? Ok. Fine. I think I need to leave now, I have to mow the grass. Or something. Not continue in a hopeless discussion.

 

I understand the frustration. The situation has grown ugly and perhaps even a little desperate, as a twisted and corrupt attack on truth and facts is justified if it produces a winning result, regardless of the damage caused. It is a war mentality without the civility of international warfare and without rules of engagement. War is more than a military attack; it is a political action that must have some type of follow-up action to make a change - without that plan, all you have is conquest, but no real gain as you sacrifice freedom to make certain the conquered do not rise up in insurrection.

 

How to engage in a viable debate when facts themselves are considered subjective is the greatest question of this generation. I look at the headlines of our top news organizations - Washington Post, the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and others, and what I see are many opinions stated as a headline: Ex-Clinton lawyers says...., Former CIA Chief says....

 

The problem with this approach is that the opinions beg a response from an opposition opinion. When the argument over opinion is conflated with news, it helps no one but yellow journalists selling sensationalism.

 

Ken said it best: remove the party from the equation and the facts are pretty simple. And pretty obvious.

[RedSpawn]

I understand the frustration. The situation has grown ugly and perhaps even a little desperate, as a twisted and corrupt attack on truth and facts is justified if it produces a winning result, regardless of the damage caused. It is a war mentality without the civility of international warfare and without rules of engagement. War is more than a military attack; it is a political action that must have some type of follow-up action to make a change - without that plan, all you have is conquest, but no real gain as you sacrifice freedom to make certain the conquered do not rise up in insurrection.

 

How to engage in a viable debate when facts themselves are considered subjective is the greatest question of this generation. I look at the headlines of our top news organizations - Washington Post, the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and others, and what I see are many opinions states as a headline: Ex-Clinton lawyers says...., Former CIA Chief says....

The problem is facts are facts, but evidence is a tricky element. Evidence is subject to confirmation bias and could become subjective. Facts can be objective but the interpretation of evidence is subjective. Therein lies the problem with rational debate.

 

We could be looking at the same set of facts--old lady and young woman picture--and arrive at markedly different conclusions about who is in the image. The fourth estate (media) could release facts (or innuendo) about the picture, but that doesn't change the picture. It may, however,color our opinions more about each other's credibility. The picture is factual; our interpretation of said picture, however is subjective.

 

Also the admissibility of evidence in the court of public opinion is far lower than the admissibility of evidence in a federal court. In the court of public opinion, almost all is "fair" in the rules of engagement. You can use facts, lies, innuendo, conjecture, supposition, emotional appeals, appeals to the credibility of the persuader, character assassination, smear campaigns, logical appeals, logical appeals with fallacies--the list is endless. However, there are 10 general commandments one should follow in rational debates.

 

 

The rules of admissibility of evidence in our judicial system are very narrow. It doesn't allow hearsay and innuendo and guilt by association claims and a lot of logical fallacies to be admitted as "proof" when they aren't. Proof is a higher evidence standard. Therefore, most salacious, titillating, and dubious "facts" fit for public consumption from media outlets wouldn't be admissible as evidence in a court of law.

 

What Are Some Factors for Determining If Evidence Is Admissible [in a court of law]?

The general rule is that all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible and all relevant evidence is admissible.

 

There are two basic factors that are considered when determining whether evidence is admissible or not:

 

Relevant – The evidence must prove or disprove an important fact in the criminal case. If the evidence doesn't relate to a particular fact, it is considered "irreelvant" and is therefore inadmissible.

Reliable – Reliability refers to the credibility of a source that is being used as evidence. This usually applies to witness testimony.

There are four basic types of evidence:

• 
   
  
• Demonstrative (a model of what likely happened at a given time and place)
  
• Documentary (a letter, blog post, or other document)
  
• Real (tangible things, such as a weapon)
  
• Testimonial (witness testimony)
  

What Are Some Factors That Determine Whether Evidence Is Inadmissible?

Evidence inadmissibility is an extremely nuanced field of law. Although evidence rules are driven by public policy, those same rules often have exceptions and those exceptions can have exceptions. In general though, evidence is more likely to be inadmissible if the evidence is:

 

• Unfairly Prejudicial – Evidence that arouses the jury’s outrage without adding any material information is often excluded. For example, the picture of children around a victim’s body is often ruled as being unfairly prejudicial.
  
• Wastes Time – In trials, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Juries do not have to hear from twenty separate character witnesses to know that the defendant is typically an honest person.
  
• Misleading – Evidence that could draw the jury’s attention away from the main issues of the case are misleading and often excluded. For example, the defendant’s homosexuality in a child molestation case is misleading since the issue is whether the defendant had sex with a minor. The gender of the minor is irrelevant.
  
• Hearsay – Testimony which is made outside of the court to prove the truth of the matter is often excluded. For example, if a witness claims another witness said the defendant hit the victim with a knife and the prosecutor wants to use the testimony to prove that the defendant stabbed the victim, that testimony is considered hearsay. However, the hearsay rule has over forty different exceptions such as the dying declaration exception.
  
• Character – Evidence to prove that the defendant or the victim has a certain personality trait and that the defendant acted according in consistently with that personality trait is often excluded. The exception is if the defendant introduces character evidence first.
  
• Expert Testimony – Expert testimony can only be given by experts. "Lay" witnesses cannot give expert testimony.
  
• Privileges – Evidence is often excluded if it came from a privileged source of information. The most important privileges are between attorneys and clients, as well as the right against self-incrimination. (bold mine)
  

See http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-admissible-evidence.html

 

As you can see, a convincing case made in the court of public opinion may result in an acquittal in the court system because a lot of "facts" or "evidence" are either irrelevant or unreliable. Facts from media outlets may not reveal a larger, obvious truth when we scrutinize them (and their sources) for accuracy, relevance and reliability.

[johnu]

No wonder you can't tell fake news and conspiracy theories from fact.

 

As Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time ..."

[ldrews]

Barmar,

 

View Postbarmar, on 2017-June-17, 18:39, said:

No wonder you can't tell fake news and conspiracy theories from fact.

 

 

As Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time ..."

 

So your gratuitous smear gets picked up and repeated and becomes a meme. Sort of like a drive-by-shooting, you don't care who you kill or what damage you do as long as you can score a point.

 

Your mother must be proud of you.

[Zelandakh]

The problem is facts are facts, but evidence is a tricky element. Evidence is subject to confirmation bias and could become subjective. Facts can be objective but the interpretation of evidence is subjective. Therein lies the problem with rational debate.

 

We could be looking at the same set of facts--old lady and young woman picture--and arrive at markedly different conclusions about who is in the image.

No I think you are confused here. The fact is that the picture is an optical illusion showing both a young and an old woman. We could argue about the interpretation of which is the dominant image but no sensible person would dispute the basic fact once the illusion had been pointed out to them. The trouble with this administration is that they might well not only reject the idea of there being an old woman in the picture but also that there was even a picture at all.

 

 

So your gratuitous smear gets picked up and repeated and becomes a meme. Sort of like a drive-by-shooting, you don't care who you kill or what damage you do as long as you can score a point.

 

Your mother must be proud of you.

Stop being a troll, mate. Baiting mods is such an old method. Is it not more fun for you to continue trying to rile up the "lefties"?

[kenberg]

Some recent posts illustrate why I have become so frustrated. With the first insult that was directed toward barmar I thought "Oh I should post a defense for him". This was quickly followed by the thought "What? I really should get into this? Good grief".

 

Nobody wishes to be the subject of back and forth conversation. X is a good guy, No, X is a bad guy. And so on. It's embarrassing for everyone concerned. So I find myself withdrawing more and more. I once enjoyed this thread, I found it interesting and informative. Times change.

 

I promise this is my last post that discusses, even obliquely, the personal qualities of barmar.

[RedSpawn]

No I think you are confused here. The fact is that the picture is an optical illusion showing both a young and an old woman. We could argue about the interpretation of which is the dominant image but no sensible person would dispute the basic fact once the illusion had been pointed out to them. The trouble with this administration is that they might well not only reject the idea of there being an old woman in the picture but also that there was even a picture at all.

 

 

 

Stop being a troll, mate. Baiting mods is such an old method. Is it not more fun for you to continue trying to rile up the "lefties"?

The picture is an optical illusion. I don't see how that would change the quality of answers from the respondents should I ask them, "What do you see in this picture"?

 

I am confident that most people will see exactly what they want to see--neither more nor less. My question is not a trick question but is an experiment designed to show that perception of reality is in the eye of the beholder. The image highlights our PERCEPTION BIAS. If the question is asked open-ended, I am not convinced that a majority of the test subjects would answer with two images. It's more likely they will answer with the one image their mind first perceives.

 

We see exactly what our brain prompts us to see--neither more nor less. And as you correctly asserted, if I reveal the perception bias and the fact the image contains at least two vantage points, the brain goes into fetch mode and scurries to see both an old woman and young lady. However, all of us aren't afforded an advisor to help guide our decision-making in real life.

 

You are correct. A "sensible" person would see the possibility of more than one answer when an advisor points out the additional choice. However, our populace may not be as sensible as you suggest and the majority can't afford advisors to guide them to better decision-making. Our President has that luxury.

 

Our forefathers understood this and developed an electoral college system for electing the President and Vice President. We have "sensible" wise men called electors who nominate and help elect the President and Vice President.

 

Sometimes our real world political situations are much larger and wider than our peripheral vision and are much more complex and deceptive than an optical illusion. Sometimes we need a 10,000 feet bird's eye view for a more complete assessment of how the individual pieces fit together. And sometimes that bird's eye view gives us additional data points that contradict our original fact pattern or assertions. Then we have to reevaluate our beliefs and perceptions about what is obvious and what is truth.

Things aren't always as they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been hidden. --Phaedrus

[PassedOut]

We have "sensible" wise men called electors who nominate and help elect the President and Vice President.

I'm not sure that still holds true.

[barmar]

Our forefathers understood this and developed an electoral college system for electing the President and Vice President. We have "sensible" wise men called electors who nominate and help elect the President and Vice President.

That was the theory behind the original design of the Electoral College. But the way it has evolved, the electors are mostly just rubber-stamping the vote of the people.

[y66]

From Ross Douthat's amusing take on the staging of Julius Caesar at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park:

 

The problem with staging a “Julius Caesar” in which Caesar clearly resembles Donald Trump, the culture-war controversy du jour thanks to Shakespeare in the Park, isn’t that doing so encourages the president’s assassination. The rough-and-tumble of democratic politics has always been rife with classical call-outs and far more egregious forms of lèse-majesté. The theatergoers who show up to watch a Shakespeare play in Central Park are — I hope — not high on the Secret Service’s watch list. And the play’s tragic arc does not exactly make tyrannicide look like the wisest of strategies, even if the director is crude and on-the-nose enough to dress his Cassius for the Women’s March.

 

No, the problem with a Trumpified Caesar is that the conceit fails to illuminate our moment the way a good classical allusion should.

 

The decadent years of the Roman Republic are as good a comparison point for our late-republican discontents as any in the history books, and a creeping Caesarism in the executive has been a feature of our politics for many years. But between his military prowess, his reforming energy and his immense (if fluctuating) popularity, old murdered Julius himself is a relatively poor analogue for Trump. Our president is a different sort of character, in need of a different sort of script. More

[billw55]

Now wasn't that a gratuitous smear? Did I provoke you in some way, or are you always this nasty?

Barmar,

 

View Postbarmar, on 2017-June-17, 18:39, said:

No wonder you can't tell fake news and conspiracy theories from fact.

 

 

As Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time ..."

 

So your gratuitous smear gets picked up and repeated and becomes a meme. Sort of like a drive-by-shooting, you don't care who you kill or what damage you do as long as you can score a point.

 

Your mother must be proud of you.

Dare I say ... snowflake? No, impossible, that is only for liberals that claim a grievance.

[RedSpawn]

That was the theory behind the original design of the Electoral College. But the way it has evolved, the electors are mostly just rubber-stamping the vote of the people.

Agreed. So it appears over time the Electoral College has abdicated its original Constitutional responsibilities. It was not designed to be a rubber-stamp of the popular vote. Our government is taking the path of least resistance by choosing political expediency over the rule of law.

 

And when the rule of men trumps the rule of law, violence becomes the means by which disagreements are settled. Enter the Scalise shooting as a harbinger of vigilantism.

 

We really need to put this last election season under an academic microscope and conduct a postmortem because I fear we have reached a dangerous turning point in our nation's history.

[RedSpawn]

I'm not sure that still holds true.

Agreed. I'm glad you noticed how we are gravitating away from that Constitutional foundation.

 

I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore. --The Wizard of Oz

[Zelandakh]

We really need to put this last election season under an academic microscope and conduct a postmortem because I fear we have reached a dangerous turning point in our nation's history.

It would indeed be a turning point if a foreign enemy power were able to make a deal with a candidate and subsequently buy the result through loans and propaganda and then get away with it without any sort of repercussions. It would be as much a symbolic passing of the baton as Sampras losing to Federer at Wimbledon. I sincerely hope that this does not end up being the case.

[RedSpawn]

It would indeed be a turning point if a foreign enemy power were able to make a deal with a candidate and subsequently buy the result through loans and propaganda and then get away with it without any sort of repercussions. It would be as much a symbolic passing of the baton as Sampras losing to Federer at Wimbledon. I sincerely hope that this does not end up being the case.

I hear you, but we are nation of laws not men. We also have intelligence services that conduct seemingly ubiquitous world-class surveillance on a large swath of the population. If Congress or the intelligence community has the irrefutable, damning evidence to impeach President Trump that adheres to the judicial system's rules of evidence, then let the Law & Order episode begin with the articles of impeachment.

 

It appears Congress has thrown several types of spaghetti against the wall to determine which charge might actually stick to President Trump or any of his alleged henchmen. Also, I have seen a lot of pathos appeals from the media to try to sway the public to endure the winding, pothole filled road to impeachment. The media has also made several logical appeals containing logical fallacies, so its hard to get excited about an upcoming political takedown.

 

I've seen a lot of kabuki theater, Senate hearings, political posturing and well-timed media leaks, but not much else. I'm not suggesting Trump is innocent, but I believe the bird's eye view will reveal the narrative is probably more layered, nuanced, and classified than anything we've seen thus far. Finally, I must remember that the millstones of justice turn exceedingly slow, but grind exceedingly fine.

 

Justice, though moving at a tardy pace, has seldom failed to overtake the wicked in their flight. -- Horace

 

Stay tuned.

[Zelandakh]

If Congress or the intelligence community has the irrefutable, damning evidence to impeach President Trump that adheres to the judicial system's rules of evidence, then let the Law & Order episode begin with the articles of impeachment.

What has impeachment to do with the judicial system? :blink: The process is political - it will only happen under the current Congress if Trump is such an electoral liability that House representatives fear for their seats or, perhaps more likely, the campaign funders (Kochs, et al) decide to pull the plug.

 

The difference can be illustrated by the recent reports about a potential obstruction of justice charge. My understanding is that it is practically impossible to make a judicial case against Trump for firing Comey as he has the defence available that he is simply carrying out his duties as head of the executive branch. It is, however, quite possible to impeach a sitting President for obstruction, as can be seen in the previous cases of Clinton and Nixon. Impeachment can occur without there being evidence of any criminal activity or indeed even without a crime having occurred.

 

In the long run, the real problem here is probably going to be that the entire administration feels the need to "lawyer up", which is something that makes life extremely uncomfortable for everyone in government. This is already happening at the top and it is likely that the process will continue down the ranks in the coming months. I strongly doubt that any charges, whether judicial or political, will be brought against DT personally during his presidency. That is not to say that no charges will be brought at all though, nor that the effects of the investigations will not be far-reaching even if no formal charges end up being tabled. Also, do not be surprised if the investigation continues well into the next term should the Democrats take over power. This is a case people might still be talking about in 50 years, complete with multiple conspiracy theories. :ph34r:

[RedSpawn]

What has impeachment to do with the judicial system? :blink: The process is political - it will only happen under the current Congress if Trump is such an electoral liability that House representatives fear for their seats or, perhaps more likely, the campaign funders (Kochs, et al) decide to pull the plug.

 

The difference can be illustrated by the recent reports about a potential obstruction of justice charge. My understanding is that it is practically impossible to make a judicial case against Trump for firing Comey as he has the defence available that he is simply carrying out his duties as head of the executive branch. It is, however, quite possible to impeach a sitting President for obstruction, as can be seen in the previous cases of Clinton and Nixon. Impeachment can occur without there being evidence of any criminal activity or indeed even without a crime having occurred.

 

In the long run, the real problem here is probably going to be that the entire administration feels the need to "lawyer up", which is something that makes life extremely uncomfortable for everyone in government. This is already happening at the top and it is likely that the process will continue down the ranks in the coming months. I strongly doubt that any charges, whether judicial or political, will be brought against DT personally during his presidency. That is not to say that no charges will be brought at all though, nor that the effects of the investigations will not be far-reaching even if no formal charges end up being tabled. Also, do not be surprised if the investigation continues well into the next term should the Democrats take over power. This is a case people might still be talking about in 50 years, complete with multiple conspiracy theories. :ph34r:

Agreed. Very good analysis.

 

Thank you for correcting me. I totally forgot that the Presiding Officer of the trial is the Chief Justice and he will determine the rules of evidence for the impeachment trial. He will rule in matters regarding the materiality, sufficiency, reliability, and redundancy of evidence presented in the case.

 

And as you correctly stated impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, but a political act designed as a safeguard against corruption or misconduct while in office. Therefore there is no trial by jury. Instead, the Senate is transformed into a quasi-judicial body who will hear the case and vote on the articles of impeachment to determine guilt or innocence. The rules of procedure for this trial are fundamentally different than a plain vanilla criminal trial. And the final question on impeachment is what vote is in the best interest of our country, of our nation, and our people.

 

But as you have mentioned, impeachment can get very partisan very quickly as demonstrated with President Clinton's proceeding. The Senators probably factor the impact of their votes on their midterm elections because it's all about politics and containing political fallout.