Mueller turns up the heat on impeachment

[drbrumley]

Adam Mill had a great article warning that attempts by media, celebrities, and prominent Democrats in 2016 to convince members of the Electoral College not to award their votes to Trump was a mere prelude to the coercion by doxing, intimidation, Tweetstorm, and social media ostracism they will employ in 2020 to impel electors to award their votes to whom they are told.

“[O]nly two people were persuaded to change their votes. These two people, who were totally anonymous and unelected, nullified hundreds of thousands of lawfully cast ballots as they succumbed to a secret campaign of intimidation and persuasion in the weeks after the 2016 presidential election.”

Yet, this was done on the spur of the moment. In 2020, they will have had four years to plan their machinations.

 

[Town Heretic]

Which also slows down justice, by the way...

That's a bold claim. Now try a bold bit of evidence or argument in support of it and I'd be happy to take a look.

Consensus got Christ crucified and Barabbas, a criminal, released.

No, the passion of a mob, whipped by people who knew how, did that. Our Republic is designed to prevent the rule of the moment.

As opposed to one ruler who rightly declared Jesus innocent.

One ruler did decide his fate. He chose to be as corrupt and indifferent to justice as the mob. At least with a system of shared power and laws that hold everyone's exercise in check you stand a chance of thwarting that outcome.

You're equivocating two different kinds of steps.

You're not using the right word. Rather, I'm noting that the one step bit is the ball game. Self defense looks a lot like a murder, but it isn't. So declaring our republic a step away from pure mob democracy sounds serious, until you recognize what that step entails.

One is a step away from a similar type of government, the other is a step away from a crime.

Supra and, not, alcoholism isn't a crime. It's just a horrible idea, like the rule of kings.

This is why equivocation is a logical fallacy, and not a valid argument.

Equivocation hides and avoids. I did neither. And, again, declaring a thing isn't making a case for it, only declaring your feeling wrapped in the robes of some unvoiced consideration, or an attempt to disguise a feeling with the appearance of that consideration.

So, again, make your case. Set out an argument of parts and illustration that can be weighed and found sufficient or wanting.

 

[ok doser]

Adam Mill had a great article warning that attempts by media, celebrities, and prominent Democrats in 2016 to convince members of the Electoral College not to award their votes to Trump was a mere prelude to the coercion by doxing, intimidation, Tweetstorm, and social media ostracism they will employ in 2020 to impel electors to award their votes to whom they are told.

“[O]nly two people were persuaded to change their votes. These two people, who were totally anonymous and unelected, nullified hundreds of thousands of lawfully cast ballots as they succumbed to a secret campaign of intimidation and persuasion in the weeks after the 2016 presidential election.”

Yet, this was done on the spur of the moment. In 2020, they will have had four years to plan their machinations.

I realized the attempt was made, didn't realize it had any effect

 

[Town Heretic]

My contention is that democracy leads to mass killing.

Actually it began between us with this:

The problem is that democracy is guaranteed to end in genocide.

The thing about a quote like that is that the parameters make it impossible to reject, even though it has no inherently demonstrable truth to it.

Beyond that, my country is a republic. That is, we were founded on democratic principles with restraints to make the worst impulse of a swayable mob less likely to pull us into ruin.

Then you moved it a bit with:

Name a democracy that is not either practicing mass murder or headed that way.

"Headed that way," has the same problem...No democracy is practicing mass murder. No state is taking anyone out and murdering them, or even taking their lives without due process, if then.

That led to your response on mass murder:

Yours is. :idunno:

It's your proffer. Set out how.

You didn't.

That found us here:

Did you think this was somehow relevant?

Well, it directly addressed your contention, so I guess that does bring it into question.

You said our democracy was practicing mass murder. I noted that the state, our Republic, isn't mandating the death of anyone absent due process. So no genocide and no mass murder.

You've invented something to disagree with.

Nope. I responded to your words and point. First by noting your error with genocide, then by noting your error with mass killings and inviting you to make a case.

And yet a million babies a year are executed.

The state isn't executing the unborn.

Does democracy mean that much to you?

Abortions aren't inherently acceptable to a republic, which is why there have been periods when the practice wasn't legal. And other forms of government have allowed or even required it. So you present a false dichotomy, the choice not actually being between a Republic and abortion or some other form of government without it.

 

[Stripe]

Our Republic is designed to prevent the rule of the moment.

The rule of the carefully considered has sat by while a million babies a year are murdered.

Actually it began between us with this:Then you moved it a bit with:That led to your response on mass murder:You didn't.That found us here:Nope. I responded to your words and point. First by noting your error with genocide, then by noting your error with mass killings and inviting you to make a case.

:yawn:

The state isn't executing the unborn.

Yet a million are murdered every year.

Abortions aren't inherently acceptable to a republic, which is why there have been periods when the practice wasn't legal. And other forms of government have allowed or even required it.

Sounds like you aren't willing to allow even the slightest bit of airtime to what's being said.

Democracy leads to genocide.

Once again, you're laser-focused on minutiae in a bid to steamroll the point.

You present a false dichotomy, the choice not actually being between a Republic and abortion or some other form of government without it.

And now you're just making things up out of thin air.

You live in a democracy.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yet a million are murdered every year.

You'll have to produce the source for that. The last year the CDC issued the numbers was 2015, and it was around 600k, down 2% from the year prior. From 78 to 97 the figure was over a million each year. From 98 to 2008 it was in the 800k range. 2009 to 2011 it was mid to low 700k. from that point until 2015 it dropped into the 600k range.

As with all forms of violence, as the Boomers aged it consistently decreased. Maybe the Boomers should be renamed, "The Worst Generation."

Sounds like you aren't willing to allow even the slightest bit of airtime to what's being said.

I've quoted you and answered on every point. You seem to be out of everything but declaration today.

Democracy leads to genocide.

I directly addressed this the first time you got it wrong. There's no proof of that. Are you on a loop or something? In lieu of rational argument you're just going to recycle the last series of declarations?

In point of fact, you can't even make the mass killing part stick, as I noted in rebuttal prior.

Once again, you're laser-focused on minutiae in a bid to steamroll the point.

Complete nonsense.

And now you're just making things up out of thin air.

Not if you understand what you've been writing. So you appear, more and more, to have a point.

You wrote that a million babies were being executed each year and asked me if democracy meant that much to me. That's tying the two together unless you had a seizure or a time lapse problem or edited poorly and something was meant to be between them.

I answered/rebutted directly on that point.

 

[Stripe]

As a subjective appeal to emotion, that's something. As an argument it's an assumption pretending to be something else.

Fact: One million unborn babies are executed every year in your nation.

Fact: Your nation is run by a system that you would presumably characterize as careful and deliberate.

You think you're bored watching you reconfiguring goal posts.

:yawn:

You'll have to produce the source for that. The last year the CDC issued the numbers was 2015, and it was around 600k, down 2% from the year prior. From 78 to 97 the figure was over a million each year. From 98 it was in the 800k range. 2009 to 2011 it was mid to low 700k. from that point until 2015 it dropped into the 600k range.

Great. Your nation only kills half a million per year. lain:

As with all forms of violence, as the Boomers aged it consistently decreased. Maybe the Boomers should be renamed, "The Worst Generation."

What is a Boomer and why do you hate them?

I directly addressed this the first time you got it wrong. There's no proof of that. Are you on a loop or something? In lieu of rational argument you're just going to recycle the last series of declarations?

Your nation is complicit in the mass killing of babies.

 

[Town Heretic]

Fact: One million unborn babies are executed every year in your nation.

Closer to half that number are aborted each year, and steadily decreasing. Those deaths are not at the hands or behest of our government.

Fact: Your nation is run by a system that you would presumably characterize as careful and deliberate.

What I said was that our system was set into place to protect it from the whims of a pure democracy where sentiment can overwhelm good judgement in the moment. It sets in place obstacles to that response, encouraging a more level headed consideration. It doesn't always succeed.

Great. Your nation only kills half a million per year. lain:

Again, no. Like saying my nation kills x number of people by drunk driving each year. The nation isn't doing either. Individuals are. Many other individuals in this country oppose the practice. Most oppose and favor it depending on the particulars. So there's near unanimous agreement on late term abortions and anything but that on very early abortions, as with the morning after pill.

What is a Boomer and why do you hate them?

It's shorthand for the Baby Boom generation and I don't hate them, but I've noted that if you look at violence and abortions, the numbers are horrific when that generation was in its prime and decreased markedly over the years as it began to age. Generation X, which came after it, doesn't have anything like that correlation.

I directly addressed this the first time you got it wrong. There's no proof of that. Are you on a loop or something? In lieu of rational argument you're just going to recycle the last series of declarations?

No idea why you just literally repeated what I said. For anyone else, I literally took him point for point and addressed them while inviting reasoned argument and counter. A few posts ago I put the whole of it together on point, if you're interested.

Your nation is complicit in the mass killing of babies.

No, it isn't. Just as much effort. Here's what more looks like, again: to be complicit means helping to commit a crime or do wrong. Helping is generally acknowledged to require an affirmative act in the completion of the wrong, not the absence of forestalling action.

 

[Stripe]

Our system was set into place to protect it from the whims of a pure democracy where sentiment can overwhelm good judgement in the moment.

It's not working.

Again, no. Like saying my nation kills x number of people by drunk driving each year. The nation isn't doing either. Individuals are. Many other individuals in this country oppose the practice. Most oppose and favor it depending on the particulars. So there's near unanimous agreement on late term abortions and anything but that on very early abortions, as with the morning after pill.

Your nation kills hundreds of thousands of babies every year.

It's shorthand for the Baby Boom generation and I don't hate them, but I've noted that if you look at violence and abortions, the numbers are horrific when that generation was in its prime and decreased markedly over the years as it began to age. Generation X, which came after it, doesn't have anything like that correlation.

Sounds unlikely.

No idea why you just literally repeated what I said.

Because it makes as much sense from me to you as it did when you wrote it.

Try writing something that doesn't do that.

For anyone else, I literally took him point for point and addressed them while inviting reasoned argument and counter. A few posts ago I put the whole of it together on point, if you're interested.

:yawn:

No, it isn't. Just as much effort. Here's what more looks like, again: to be complicit means helping to commit a crime or do wrong. Helping is generally acknowledged to require an affirmative act in the completion of the wrong, not the absence of forestalling action.

Your nation kills nearly a million babies a year.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's not working.

You're entitled to your subjective valuation. You definitely shouldn't move here.

Your nation kills hundreds of thousands of babies every year.

"Again, no. Like saying my nation kills x number of people by drunk driving each year. The nation isn't doing either. Individuals are. Many other individuals in this country oppose the practice. Most oppose and favor it depending on the particulars. So there's near unanimous agreement on late term abortions and anything but that on very early abortions, as with the morning after pill."

Sounds unlikely.

And yet it's true. I've set out the statistics on violence and that generation in another thread. The abortion rates match up as well. No idea why it's so different. Could simply be a numbers game. It was a huge wave of a thing, comparatively, and it was reaching maturity in the 60s.

Because it makes as much sense from me to you as it did when you wrote it.

Then you might want to reconsider your reading, because it wasn't complicated and it was verifiably true, inviting objection on an particular, if you could frame a particular objection, instead of all this declarative hand waving.

Your nation kills nearly a million babies a year.

And it looks like we're back at the beginning of the cycle again.

"You'll have to produce the source for that. The last year the CDC issued the numbers was 2015, and it was around 600k, down 2% from the year prior. From 78 to 97 the figure was over a million each year. From 98 it was in the 800k range. 2009 to 2011 it was mid to low 700k. from that point until 2015 it dropped into the 600k range."

Okay JR, I'm waiting. Stripe here has nothing more to say apparently, though he may say it a great deal.

 

[Stripe]

You're entitled to your subjective valuation. You definitely should stay there.

Meanwhile, the facts remain:

Hundreds of thousands of unborn babies are murdered in your nation annually.

You have a democratic republic.

My contention stands, your quibbling notwithstanding.

The nation isn't doing either. Individuals are.

A distinction that makes no difference, especially to those who are killed.

At least under a one-man leadership, there would be a chance that he would be good. Democracies inevitably lead exactly to where you should stay.

And yet it's true.

We will be the judge of that.

I've set out the statistics on violence and that generation in another thread.

Yeah, well, given your loose relationship with statistics, the odds are that you've gotten them horribly wrong.

What is clear is that the implied blame upon a previous generation is almost certainly misplaced.

You might want to reconsider your reading, because it was not complicated and was true, inviting objection on a particular, if you could frame an objection instead of all this hand waving.

And it looks like we're back at the beginning of the cycle again.

Your own source: The last year the US CDC issued the numbers was 2015, and it was about 600,000, down 2 percent from the year before. From 1978 to 1997 the figure was more than 1 million each year. From 1998 it was about 800,000 per year. From 2009 to 2011 it was mid-to-low 700,000. from that point until 2015 it dropped to about 600,000."

That works out to about 823,000 per year, and that's leaving the "more than 1 million" at just 1 million.

Sounds like my initial claim was fine. The US kills about a million unborn babies per year.

Remember what we said about you and numbers?

People should need a license to do statistics. Somebody is going to get hurt.

Okay JR, I'm waiting. Town here has nothing more to say apparently, although he may say it a great deal.

 

[Stripe]

JR, I'm waiting.

To be fair, I don't know what I'm waiting for. :noid:

 

[Town Heretic]

You're entitled to your subjective valuation.

Didn't proffer one. That was my note on your declaration. You should try to come up with your own lines, or an argument.

You should definitely try one of those. lain:

Meanwhile, the facts remain: Hundreds of thousands of unborn babies are murdered in your nation annually.

True to my way of thinking.

You have a democratic republic.

A federal republic with a constitutional representative democracy. And?

My contention stands, your quibbling notwithstanding.

A rebuttal isn't quibbling. And declaration isn't argument or answer.

A distinction that makes no difference, especially to those who are killed.

It distinguishes your ongoing declarations from the demonstrable truth of the matter, so it makes that difference.

But you said that our form of government leads inevitably to genocide. That's nonsense for the reasons offered prior.

Then you said the state is responsible for mass killing, dialing down a bit. I noted the problem with that as well.

At least under a one-man leadership, there would be a chance that he would be good.

There's actually no more chance that an individual will be better than a large number of them, which makes your statistics/numbers nonsense in a moment hysterical (either).

Democracies inevitably lead exactly to where you should stay.

This isn't about your problems with me (well, it isn't for me) but about your inability to support your conclusion/point with an argument of parts, no matter how you alter it.

We will be the judge of that.

We? :chuckle: That's funny for a few reasons. But no, the facts aren't decided by how you feel about them. You should try argument.

Yeah, well, given your loose relationship with statistics

Supra.

What is clear is that the implied blame upon a previous generation is almost certainly misplaced.

No idea what you're after with that. I simply noted an empirical truth. For whatever reason, the murder rates and abortion rates for the Baby Boomers were horrific. Generations following are doing much better. The decline in both, steadily, is trouble for your narrative.

You might want to reconsider your reading, because it was not complicated and was true, inviting objection on a particular, if you could frame an objection instead of all this hand waving.

Parroting when you can't answer is as pointless as proffering an argument you can't support. From here on out I'll just note what you're doing, pro forma.

Sounds like my initial claim was fine. The US kills about a million unborn babies per year.

That wasn't your initial claim.

It's closer to half the figure you asserted. You'd have to go back over twenty years to find the figure you proffered as an empirical truth. Or claim an average, which you didn't. Now you're scrambling.

Remember what we said about you and numbers?

We again? For someone who wants a single ruler you sure do play the representative card often enough. And what you, absent some election, are willing to say isn't in question. The truth of most of it is another matter.

 

[Stripe]

A federal republic with a constitutional representative democracy. And?

And about a million murders per year of society's most innocent.

Declaration isn't argument.

It distinguishes your ongoing declarations from the demonstrable truth of the matter, so it makes that difference.

My ongoing declaration is democracies lead to horror.

My ongoing reasoning is that the US — a modified democracy — kills about a million kids a year.

Your counter is that the US government is not doing the killing and my number might be a little too high.

Your objections do nothing to diminish my assertion, while they make light of the actual problem.

What do you think is more reasonable: To protest a form of government that allows abortion at the rate the US does or to oppose the guy saying that?

There's actually no more chance that an individual will be better than a large number of them.

:AMR:

You're serious?

A society has rules against everything from killing spiders to driving fast. A man has a pretty good chance of getting through life without falling foul of the regulations, regardless of how stupid they are.

Which makes your statistics/numbers nonsense in a moment hysterical (either), whatever that means.

You should try argument, Supraman.

For whatever reason, the murder rates and abortion rates for the Baby Boomers were horrific.

Linking it to a group of people paints the people in a poor light, whether you mean it or not. This is why care is needed when presenting statistics. There are ways to do it that provide the details without making implications.

The violence data, for example, are almost certainly due to demographics, not "a generation dying off." The abortion rate will have everything to do with the proliferation of at-home murder kits and young people giving up sex and nothing to do with an improvement in morality.

Generations following are not doing any better. The decline in both might be trouble for my ideas, but your narrative sans proper analysis does not do it.

From here on out I'll just note what you're doing.

That's all you ever do. :idunno:

You certainly don't offer anything that stands up to a minute's thought.

That wasn't your initial claim... It's closer to half the figure you asserted. You'd have to go back over twenty years to find the figure you proffered as an empirical truth. Or claim an average, which you didn't.

Of course I did. I told Koban: "A million a year or thereabouts" when he asked how many have been murdered since Roe.

And quibbling about a few hundred thousand is stupid at best. So drop it. :thumb:

 

[JudgeRightly]

And about a million murders per year of society's most innocent.

Declaration isn't argument.



My ongoing declaration is democracies lead to horror.

My ongoing reasoning is that the US — a modified democracy — kills about a million kids a year.

Your counter is that the US government is not doing the killing and my number might be a little too high.

Your objections do nothing to diminish my assertion, while they make light of the actual problem.

What do you think is more reasonable: To protest a form of government that allows abortion at the rate the US does or to oppose the guy saying that?

:AMR:

You're serious?

A society has rules against everything from killing spiders to driving fast. A man has a pretty good chance of getting through life without falling foul of the regulations, regardless of how stupid they are.

Which makes your statistics/numbers nonsense in a moment hysterical (either), whatever that means.

You should try argument, Supraman.



Linking it to a group of people paints the people in a poor light, whether you mean it or not. This is why care is needed when presenting statistics. There are ways to do it that provide the details without making implications.

The violence data, for example, are almost certainly due to demographics, not "a generation dying off." The abortion rate will have everything to do with the proliferation of at-home murder kits and young people giving up sex and nothing to do with an improvement in morality.

Generations following are not doing any better. The decline in both might be trouble for my ideas, but your narrative sans proper analysis does not do it.

That's all you ever do. :idunno:

You certainly don't offer anything that stands up to a minute's thought.

Of course I did. I told Koban: "A million a year or thereabouts" when he asked how many have been murdered since Roe.

And quibbling about a few hundred thousand is stupid at best. So drop it. :thumb:

What's interesting is that Town is quibbling over your change in wording from "genocide" to "mass murder", et al, when "genocide" literally means "the deliberate killing of a large group of people."

"Hundreds of thousands of babies," let alone "millions," qualifies as "a large group of people."

And as you said, arguing about a few hundred thousand is moot.

@Town, You are aware, are you not, that the average number of babies aborted (that we know about) per year in the US since Roe V Wade is around 1.33 million, right?

 

[Stripe]

et al

Can we agree to leave the Latin to the lawyers?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Can we agree to leave the Latin to the lawyers?

Hahaha.

"Et al" just means "and others." It's just another way of saying, "etcetera."

 

[Stripe]

Imagine if I had opened up with: "The US kills about 1,600 babies per day, and that number used to be a thousand more."

What would Town have found to argue with then? :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Hahaha.

"Et al" just means "and others." It's just another way of saying, "etcetera."

It scares me.

 

[Town Heretic]

What's interesting is that Town is quibbling over your change in wording from "genocide" to "mass murder", et al,

Quibbling is a subjective and I'd argue (given your sentiment) self-serving estimation that isn't actually an accurate complaint. Rather, genocide practiced by a form of government is far different than mass killing by the state, which may not be aimed at any particular group, but at an activity (see: Kent State), which is very different from individuals within a society choosing abortion without the government sponsoring or mandating it.

The first two mistakes Stripe made were ascribing the deaths to the government instead of the individuals. That plus the unfounded and problematic notion that democracy inevitably leads to genocide, which by nature of being open ended can be asserted without proof.

when "genocide" literally means "the deliberate killing of a large group of people."

No, it doesn't. Get a better dictionary.

Genocide is: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." Merriam-Webster

So what happened in Nazi Germany was an attempt at genocide, the extinction of the Jewish people, where what has been happening in poor neighborhoods in Chicago over the past few years, isn't, though a great many people have died violently there. It also isn't state sponsored and performed. A long, long way from a quibble. To quibble is to avoid the point of an argument by cavailing about the word choice. I've actually taken on each declaration using the word while noting, when you attempt to actually connect it, it doesn't work.

"Hundreds of thousands of babies," let alone "millions," qualifies as "a large group of people."

If the trend has continued it should be fairly close to half a million now. At what point, absent legal action, it stops falling is anyone's guess.

@Town, You are aware, are you not, that the average number of babies aborted (that we know about) per year in the US since Roe V Wade is around 1.33 million, right?

The average over time is not the number being killed "every year" as Stripe set out. And if you'd read me you'd know I noted the actual statistics and likelier answer in relation to what is happening here now. I also noted that the numbers that allow for that average attended the Baby Boomers, as did dramatically higher murder rates. As they've aged both homicide rates and abortion rates and numbers have decline steadily.