Impeach This...

[anatess2]

 

[Traveler]

My good friend @anatess2 and many others on this forum.  Unlike Speaker Pelosi I am not full of hate and claim to love everybody.  Never-the-less, like most citizens, I am not ecstatic with the direction of our country and society.  I would liken our country and society to someone deeply affected with cancer.   Perhaps Trump is the equivalent  of aggressive surgery and chemotherapy.  For sure the divisions in the country are not pleasant. 

There is no question in my mind that a healthy person should not submit themselves to such aggressive surgery and chemotherapy.  If a person (or country) is not suffering from advanced stages of cancer (or the political equivalent) they should not seek treatment from a doctor that wants to try the treatment (or impeach a likewise aggressive politician).

My greatest concern is the hatred that divides our country - it classes, it races and it genders.  I do not like the wealthy class very much even though I am kind of one of them.  I do not want to drive and maintain an expensive car or live in and take care of a home in a more upscale neighborhood.  I do not want to spend my private moments with someone beyond the two biological genders that define our species.  But just because I prefer some things does not mean that I hate everything else or that I cannot get along with them and allow them (to some degree) to pursue their dreams - I intend to pursue my own dreams and not so much anybody else's.   But I am concerned that my lack of support for certain things is so often interpreted as or accused to be hate. 

I genuinely try to love everybody because my L-rd and G-d has asked and commanded me to do so.  But I find that there are a lot of people I encounter that are hard for me to like, let alone love.  Sadly some that I find hard to like are my in-laws that my wife loves dearly.    I have worked hard to love everybody - but I am not even close to there yet.  The best that I have been able to do in many cases is to not hate them.  President Trump (and for now - every other politician I know anything about) are on my "I do not hate them" list.  I do not mind if every politician in DC was impeached and this includes Trump.  My single concern about impeaching Trump is that the Washington establishment will find some one infinitely worse to replace him.   

I also have a hard time liking the corporate elites (even though I had a brother - now retired - that was one of them but definitely not of the common mold).  For the most part I believe those willing to sit on the corporate boards to be evil (obviously there are some exceptions) but I believe Trump to tend more towards the evil side of corporate elites.  So there you have it - my two greatest prejudices - Corporate Elites and Politicians - and President Trump fits the bill of both.  I try really hard to love everybody but Trump is one that challenges my resolve.

I hope this will not keep me from the Celestial Glory or from your friendship (you are easy to like) - I will work on my love problem - but I fear our country is too close to civil war and violent conflict.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 5, 2019 by Traveler

[anatess2]

@Traveler, you don't have to love Trump.  You just have to realize that the extreme divisiveness of your country has been there for much longer than Trump.  Trump simply exposed them to the sunlight.  Now you have a chance to bleach it starting with the guy you elected to the Senate in Utah.

Edited December 6, 2019 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

Just now, anatess2 said:

@Traveler, you don't have to love Trump.  

Yes, you do.

YES. YOU. DO!!!!!!

 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Yes, you do.

YES. YOU. DO!!!!!!

 

Well sorry I failed... I don't love the guy.  I love a lot of what he's doing though.

[anatess2]

@Just_A_Guy, I found this very interesting... not that Legal Eagle can be wrong (and Frei can be too but I haven't caught an error on his analysis on first viewing) about many things regarding the impeachment inquiry but how a personal bias is so difficult to overcome even while trying.

 

 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

@Traveler, you don't have to love Trump.  You just have to realize that the extreme divisiveness of your country has been there for much longer than Trump.  Trump simply exposed them to the sunlight.  Now you have a chance to bleach it starting with the guy you elected to the Senate in Utah.

It is not a matter of love - it is a matter of trust.  I do not trust Trump!  I did not support or vote for Romney - I do not like his politics or agree with him about much concerning Utah and politics.  But I trust Romney much more than I trust Trump.  Sometimes I think I trust the Democrats more than Republicans - because I think they will accomplish what they say they will - even if they have to lie and cheat to do it.  They will stand together and accomplish their priorities.  But Republicans cannot be trusted for anything - especially when it comes to a political agenda.  But Trump is an unknown - his most visible acts (his tweets and treatment of anyone that disagree with him) is completely off the scale on the un-trust-able side. 

I am most conflicted - as evil and corrupt as are the Democrats - I am not sure but that removing Trump from the presidency may bring about the best results for our country and our political divisions and corruptions.   Trump has exposed that Washington is corrupt and hypocritical - not just our elected officials but our bureaucracies as well.  We cannot trust our politicians, we cannot trust the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, the CDC, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, the Military, the FDA, our public education system, or even the good guys because we do not know who they are or how to tell them from the bad guys.  We are building great distrust - not just at the federal level but at every level.   Maybe we would all be better off with a Democrat president, congress, supreme court and everything else (or the equivalent with Republicans)  - because then at least we would all know (as in Hong Cong) how important liberties and freedoms are - and that our politicians and nation's leaders are our greatest threat - not just those that we know we disagree with.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 6, 2019 by Traveler

[Vort]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

@Just_A_Guy, I found this very interesting... not that Legal Eagle can be wrong (and Frei can be too but I haven't caught an error on his analysis on first viewing) about many things regarding the impeachment inquiry but how a personal bias is so difficult to overcome even while trying.

I started watching Legal Eagle about a month ago, and I've been somewhat unimpressed. The guy knows more than I do about law, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement coming from someone who knows next to nothing about law. He wants to be perceived as unbiased, but he's anything but unbiased. Kind of rankles. A lawyer, or for that matter any good logician, is supposed to be able to accurately represent his opponents' strongest arguments, something I haven't really seen from LE.

[Just_A_Guy]

Legal Eagle is fun to watch and I like his breakdowns of law-oriented TV shows.  But, he’s a prime example of the card-carrying ABA lawyer who sees the law as a means to get what he’s already inclined to want, rather than something to be respected and followed in its own right regardless of how it conflicts with his own prejudices and interests.

[Guest Mores]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

@Just_A_Guy, I found this very interesting... not that Legal Eagle can be wrong (and Frei can be too but I haven't caught an error on his analysis on first viewing) about many things regarding the impeachment inquiry but how a personal bias is so difficult to overcome even while trying.

 

 

That's really interesting.  I'd seen LE's analysis and had virtually the same reaction as this guy did.  I didn't know about the Obama OLC memo.  That simply confirms what I had suspected.  I also appreciated his verbalization of the "cumulative" vs. "alternative".  I was formulating an argument along those lines.  But I hadn't ironed it out yet.  But, yeah.  That was what I was thinking.

Thanks for the post.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Legal Eagle is fun to watch and I like his breakdowns of law-oriented TV shows.  But, he’s a prime example of the card-carrying ABA lawyer who sees the law as a means to get what he’s already inclined to want, rather than something to be respected and followed in its own right regardless of how it conflicts with his own prejudices and interests.

Sort of like 2 out of the 4 'Professors' they had at the impeachment hearings recently...eh???

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Sort of like 2 out of the 4 'Professors' they had at the impeachment hearings recently...eh???

The funny thing is, LE talks like the young, engaging law professors I had at the U ten years back.  

But, as I suspect you well know, law professors tend to know an awful lot about a ridiculously narrow field—outside their expertise they’re worse than useless.  But the ivory tower atmosphere gives them such egos that they are generally no longer able to tell when they don’t know what they’re talking about.  

But, it’s awfully fun watching full-law professors occasionally venture into courtrooms to try to practice law and then implode under the weight of reality and a judge who doesn’t revere them as a god.  

Edited December 6, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The funny thing is, LE talks like the young, engaging law professors I had at the U ten years back.  

But, as I suspect you well know, law professors tend to know an awful lot about a ridiculously narrow field—outside their expertise they’re worse than useless.  But the ivory tower atmosphere gives them such egos that they are generally no longer able to tell when they don’t know what they’re talking about.  

You know, when I read your post it dawned on me that even thought we have a well defined scientific definition of "Intelligence" - We don't have any scientific method of classifying or defining stupidly.  In general I do not think it takes much to identify stupidly in others - it is ourselves that we all seem to be blind.  That is ourselves and those we love and care about.  I have noticed that with many of my children that are now raising their children that it is common to hear their attempts at parenting with the often spoken phrase - "We do not use the word stupid or dumb in our home - we do not call anyone dumb or stupid."  I upset my daughter a while back when I asked, "Why? Don't you want them to have a clear idea what dumb and stupid are and how it is translated into action or words?"

It would seem that we are bringing up a generation that expect to be patted on the back and complemented on their achievements - or if their achievements fall short to be complemented on their effort.  It is interesting to me because I was raised in a home of overachievers.   I never heard the words spoken except that we (most certainly me) could have and should have done better.  My father was a artiest (among other things) and hated to sell his own work - he always wanted to make it better.  I have noticed that many get peeved if someone disagrees with them - or worse - points out an obvious flaw.  Sometimes the greatest achievements come from the depths of harsh criticism of our mistakes.   

I do not know enough about those that specialize in the law - but I suspect that those that deserve the brunt of lawyer jokes have little clue if they are doing a poor job of their specialization.  And if experience serves me right - those lawyers that get as upset (or more so) than does Trump, when someone disagrees with them or draws attentions to their mistakes - are among the dumbest and most stupid of their profession.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

On 12/6/2019 at 12:49 PM, Traveler said:

 But Trump is an unknown - his most visible acts (his tweets and treatment of anyone that disagree with him) is completely off the scale on the un-trust-able side. 

I guess you didn't watch the video.  That's ok.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I guess you didn't watch the video.  That's ok.

I watched the video - Do you trust Trump?  Do you trust him enough that if you disagreed with him that you would say so (as you have with me and others) - with no concern of what he would do (not argue) in response?  

I have learned by sad experience that some intend to "get even" with those that disagree with them - in ways far beyond the simple disagreement.  Though I disagree from time to time with someone like you are @prisonchaplain I trust you such that I am fully open about any disagreements.  As I have said - I do not trust Trump and would not discuss opinions with him.  I trust you and others - but, especially in a court of law - there is much that I do not trust (especially with most politicians) I do not trust and would take the Fifth. 

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I watched the video - Do you trust Trump?  Do you trust him enough that if you disagreed with him that you would say so (as you have with me and others) - with no concern of what he would do (not argue) in response?  

I have learned by sad experience that some intend to "get even" with those that disagree with them - in ways far beyond the simple disagreement.  Though I disagree from time to time with someone like you are @prisonchaplain I trust you such that I am fully open about any disagreements.  As I have said - I do not trust Trump and would not discuss opinions with him.  I trust you and others - but, especially in a court of law - there is much that I do not trust (especially with most politicians) I do not trust and would take the Fifth. 

 

The Traveler

I trust Trump to preside over the country more than Romney by a large margin.  

And I have zero fear of telling Trump exactly what I think just like all the other people, including Romney, that blasts him on a daily basis who continue to live and breathe in liberty and tell falsehoods about him and still get his endorsement to win a Senate seat.  MSM continue to give 90% negative coverage, Hollywood and Late Night Shows continue to mock him, and Congress continue to harrass him every single day with impunity.

You are living in clown world in your head born from Trump Derangement.  And by the way, Epstein didn’t kill himself, Seth Rich didn’t die from a robbery, and Trump didn’t kill either of them nor anyone else. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I trust Trump to preside over the country more than Romney by a large margin.  

And I have zero fear of telling Trump exactly what I think just like all the other people, including Romney, that blasts him on a daily basis who continue to live and breathe in liberty and tell falsehoods about him and still get his endorsement to win a Senate seat.  MSM continue to give 90% negative coverage, Hollywood and Late Night Shows continue to mock him, and Congress continue to harrass him every single day with impunity.

You are living in clown world in your head born from Trump Derangement.  And by the way, Epstein didn’t kill himself, Seth Rich didn’t die from a robbery, and Trump didn’t kill either of them nor anyone else. 

Falsehoods?  From a GOP presidential nominee?

The devil, you say!

[Guest MormonGator]

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Falsehoods?  From a GOP presidential nominee?

All politicians lie @Just_A_Guy. Even ones you and I like and admire. It's the nature of the job. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. 

[Just_A_Guy]

22 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

All politicians lie @Just_A_Guy. Even ones you and I like and admire. It's the nature of the job. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. 

Oh, I have it on excellent authority that Trump never lies.  Except when his lies are a sign of him being “smart”, which makes them okay, or something. 

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, I have it on excellent authority that Trump never lies.  Except when his lies are a sign of him being “smart”, which makes them okay, or something. 

Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is showing. He's a model of integrity, honesty, humility and virtue.. Just ask Marla Maples. 

[Jamie123]

On 12/6/2019 at 3:10 PM, anatess2 said:

Well sorry I failed... I don't love the guy.  I love a lot of what he's doing though.

~~Trump and Anatess sitting in a tree! K.I.S.....*OOOF*

Ugh Anatess! You didn't have to hit me *THAT* hard!!

[Vort]

On 12/9/2019 at 12:06 PM, anatess2 said:

I trust Trump to preside over the country more than Romney by a large margin.

I am in a state of near disbelief in realizing that I agree with this. I certainly never agreed with it before, not at any time in the past until maybe the Gorsuch nomination.

[Vort]

A member of the First Presidency recently visited and spoke with the LDS students at a midwest law school. My son was present at the meeting. My son indicated that, without any names being explicitly mentioned except in general terms such as "this administration", it was evident that this man was not a fan of President Trump. Yet much of what the leader said had to do with standing strong against the evils championed by President Trump's political opponents. I suspect this ambiguity is present not only among the highest quorums of the Church, but is general among Church members, including on this forum.

[Guest Mores]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

I suspect this ambiguity is present not only among the highest quorums of the Church, but is general among Church members, including on this forum.

I'll give my biased interpretation of such ambiguity or apparent contradiction.

Most of the positions that liberals tout are all rhetoric without substance.  e.g. -- ask a bunch of college students if they're for the "Green New Deal", you'll get 90% support.  But when you start asking about individual points of the Deal, then they find out they're all against it after all.  Same thing with socialism.  They're for it but don't even know what socialism is.

Go down the line for virtually every point of the liberal agenda.  About 80% (a number pulled out of a wormhole into the dark dimension) of the points are things that people agree with the "title" but hate the actual details.  Yes, the conservative points may have similar numbers, but they're reversed.  80% (more of the same) of the time the titles match the details.

ANOTHER INTERPRETATION

He could just be a very conservative Never-Trumper.

[Guest MormonGator]

29 minutes ago, Mores said:

He could just be a very conservative Never-Trumper.

Generally speaking, the republican NeverTrumpers are so small that they have no influence. The religious ones are one thing, but the establishment NeverTrumpers are elitist snobs who told republicans to "shut up, get in line, vote for who the party tells you to" but then refused to take their own medicine when told by Trumpers to do the same.