YJ02

i signed up here because i have some science interests. came here to look for topics and answers/opinions on things i cant get at other places i am on. but, what did I see when I came?The Big Bright shiny object of 'impeachment' as a person with several degrees in the social sciences and a masters, I could just not resist but i will TRY to refrain from it..too much entrenchment-every forum and social media site, not just here- I am just going to go about what I came here for and look for those science topics... sorry for the mess << oh, and the ST reference was just that,a reference >>> have a great day...really

Well I tried that. Upthread you will see where I cited an article from national review. The response was national review was not valid. well in political discussion, which is based on opinion, what is valid? it is all subjective. A pro Trump person throws in something from FOX or Newsmax and they are --rightly--told that it is right leaning. someone then uses a left leaning sight..also, would not be valid. All anyone can do in this subject area is observe and discuss. As I stated above, we in the social sciences attempt to apply the Scientific Method to human behaviors,such as political behaviors, it cannot be done with the same amount of accuracy as say a chemistry experiment.' In the social sciences one could attempt to repeat the findings of another, but there is little chance that one would achieve the same results. There are simply too many unknown and uncontrollable variables in any application of the scientific method to human behavior, especially in group activities. from the quote below, for Indiana Univ of PA, we see that the method can be used for political systems only, not thought, opinion or abstracts. All of this discussion on the impeachment is based on thought, opinion and abstracts.All of which is based on the actors involved.The scientific method can only be used for data; number of voters, votes received, bills submitted, bills passed to law, etc. It sates that the study asks the question 'what ought to be?". Since we are a democracy where all are taught and encouraged to form their own views based on what facts are available, then 'what ought to be?' is subjective. there is no one right answer or single outcome as one could achieve in a physics demonstration. "Although the study of politics and power is ancient, the discipline of political science is relatively new. Like other social sciences, political science uses a “scientific” approach, meaning that political scientists approach their study in an objective, rational, and systematic manner. Some political scientists focus on abstract and theoretical questions, while others study particular government policies and their effects. Political scientists focus upon political systems, including the effect of environment on the system, inputs, the decision-making agencies which render binding public policies, and system outputs. Approaches to the study of government and politics include the normative approach, in which philosophical attention centers on values by asking the question “What ought to be?” and the behavioral approach, in which an attempt is made to develop verifiable theories through scientific methods by asking the questions “How?” and “Why?”" https://www.iup.edu/politicalscience/about/ if people here are continuing to use news sites and articles as evidence,i am sorry, that is just not evidence. they are only evidence of someone's opinion based on however that news source leans politically. so, if that is what every one is asking for, I can give those all day long. but in a discussion such as this, where each person is buried in their own opinions and views of the topic, no amount of evidence is going to sway anyone's opinion. ABC news leans left (see media bias chart above), as such the article is biased. Ipsos polling has also been labeled as left leaning as is ABC polls since it is part of ABC news https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/evidence_for_massive_liberal_bias_in_ipsos_polling_of_the_trump_vs_clinton_matchup.html so this is not 'evidence' but it is evidence of opinions of a part of the american public you see the issue? you can cite one news source, and anyone can choose to discount it based on whatever news source they are using this is a major problem in american politics today as we have no real 'centrist' and truly objective news media any longer.

no, you don't say? but this sub forum, is not hard science, it is political. political science is part of social sciences. there is no proving anything when it comes to social science other then historical evidence.which is also not real proof in the way something can be proved in chemistry or physics. historical "proof" is always changing as new historical and archaeological finds are made. BESIDES. providing anything approaching proof in this discussion is nothing more then a self laid trap. If I give you a news source or a poll site, then the responses will undoubtedly be "well, that a right/left leaning organization, you can't use that" that is why i inserted the table of media bias above from ALLPOINTS. but as i stated as well, who is ALLPOINTS and who are they to say what is right,left or center? There is no academy of sciences or any other governing board that is without bias on politics or political information. You would need a computer algorithm to approach that--and then the issue would be the biases of the person who programmed the algorithm.

i have been on other sites where you are not allowed to add an avatar (not seeing that either) or other info until you reach a certain number of posts/reputation btw-- i hope no one takes stuff personal here, so many ppl at so many places cant seem to discuss without have a conniption thxs again!

how do i add in location? not seeing that. thanks!!

I am not talking about the events of the Trump administration, nor any hypothetical events of a HRC admin., and I think you know that. I am talking about, and only about, a simple point A --election night and the reaction of HRC supporters, to point B-- the current events of impeachment it is apparent to many people-again an observation, that B is a direct result of A and not of anything that happened in between (Comey report, Mueller Report, Stormy Daniels). Conversely (or is it inversely? hmm), A HRC win would have generated its own point A - reactions of 'lock her up' ninnies post election, resulting in a point B. The obligatory 'evidence' needed for an impeachment would have been sought out and found. Either side in either 2016 result-real or hypothetical- has/would have engaged in a quest to fulfill the predetermined ending desired by their need to have closure to their meet their collective confirmation bias If your a Star Trek fan, this whole affair is a lot like the Cardassian justice system ------------------------------------------ Now, another prediction (and please no one ask for evidence of a prediction)- that if and when the Senate does not convict Trump, the outrage of the dems will surpass that of post election night 2016. The reason why, perhaps, that those like Schiff and Nadler and CNN and MSNBC have been saying things like "the evidence is overwhelming/ the case is solid against the president/' there are numerous items of evidence supporting high crimes and misdemeanors" and the like in order to put into the minds of an already receptive and pre- convinced and pre-sold democratic audience (all of which connect right back to Point A , 2016 election results) that there is simply no way that Trump will not be convicted. Then, all the greater the rage when he is not convicted and then the seeds will have been planted for the next round of "the GOP rigged the Senate hearing" etc,etc,etc. And to also attempt to deligit his win in 2020. Then, you show me how you prove the opinion of human beings? it is not possible to give hard and incontrovertible evidence of such. all "proofs" of human behavior are subjective

Evidence..seems to be a talking point of yours. Well, let me share something with you as a student of the social sciences; when it comes to the study of all of man's social mechanisms there are no absolutes, no 'proofs'. All one can do is cite what we hold to be accurate dates and events of history or facts/extracts from texts- like the Constitution for example. Everything else is subjective, fleeting and subject to change based on change-like how public opinion can be readily changed by events, especially in the days of the 24 hour news cycle. As a American Government professor of mine liked to joke "the professor over there in the (hard) sciences building like to say we all have hard science envy (a slimly veiled reference to penis envy/ erections... the whole Trump "big hands' thing ) over here (in the social science building). Because the hard sciences, as you all know, can readily be proven or there is a overwhelming amount of evidence to indicate that proof is there. We in the social science cannot do that.We can only observe, surmise and suggest and predict behaviors based on those observations. But, once again, to feed your obsession. here is a site (one of a few) that rate the different media outlets as well as polling companies. But that gives another question: who rates the raters? It is all a subjective or better an inter subjective maze of supposition that is based on the social sciences attempt at applying the scientific method to matters of human thought and conduct.https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings?field_featured_bias_rating_value=All&field_news_source_type_tid[1]=1&field_news_source_type_tid[2]=2&field_news_source_type_tid[3]=3&title=gallup#ratings

In the political landscape of America's last 10 years or so of so much "bloodsport politics", numbers and polls have become little more the manipulative tools for whomever it is paying for the polls. The best you can get is aggregates, and then you should go +/-, say..hmm...A LOT. It is pretty sad the state of our polity over the last few decades; the politics of personal destruction, impeachment for sex acts and then lying about it, triangulation, the breakdown of discourse,etc,etc. It has all amounted to a state where one can really only go with their instincts on a candidate, and then hope you were right. Then now--following on that--we have a part of the population that went instinctual for Trump, the other for Clinton, and both sides are STILL convinced their instincts were right! it used to be, we got facts on a candidate, and then facts on their policy and plans. Whoever won, those who voted fort he loser usually supported the President and the good of the nation. Today, that is long gone. Even if Clinton had won, the current situation would be much the same. We would be in a situation with a re-actively elected GOP House majority, in the midst of impeachment hearings on her. And why? All because GOP losers would have been protesting about how THEIR resistance was to begin with impeachment to follow (with all the du rigueur chants of 'lock her up', 'Hillary for Jail', 'Not my President' ) the day after election day 2016. and their impeachment proceedings would also be invalid based on a mass pre-determination before the fact (fact being a high crime and misdemeanor committed while in office) of her guilt. The only way forward, though I doubt democrats will do this, is for them to nominate a moderate- Gabbard, Yang or even Mayor Pete.The only way I can see that the nation can ever get back to a functioning bi polar, confrontational but compromising and collaborative system of government, is for the nation to push aside the extremes of either party and embrace moderation.

BOTH sides are pushing their well crafted narratives to the public through the American media outlets that are sympathetic to either side. For quite a while now, I have not trusted any American media outlet, tv and internet/print, to report news objectively. So, as for any of my links being 'valid', well... I use them here because I figured no one here would accept the news outlets that I do get news from--and none of those are from the US. I usually watch stuff like France24, BBC and a few Australian news sites. It seems, to me, as if an outsider's perspective on US domestic issues is far more trustworthy and objective/dispassionate, then anything from the US itself. --------------------- Now with this 'Schiff releases phone records "news" I ma seeing on YT clips. I watched a few clips from FOX and a few from CNN and MSNBC. You would think that the people on each were talking about entirely different events. It seems as if someone-I dont know what agency it would fall to, may need to conduct independent investigations into BOTH the White House, the Dem side and the GOP side of the House of Representatives, and the media!! All just to get somewhere near the truth at some point in the middle. I have thought as well (my thought, my opinion based on a subjective observation of all the 'noise' that populates news feeds) that in America the majority of people already think that the way things are done are not via by the book=legal activities, but by way of shaky phone calls between world leaders and backroom deals between official and unofficial diplomats. So, when this issue of the now infamous phone call of Trump's came out, most Americans simply thought "so what? It's how it is done and has been for a long time" That is how cynical the American population has become over the decades. All they care about is their family and their family's ability to maintain their status in society/economy. Whatever the politicians are doing, if it benefits those two things, the majority of the American public simply does not care how it is getting done. They all want sausage but do not want to tour the sausage factory.

this is about a subjective issue- thoughts on the impeachment. as such, it is opinion. but, I'll be your Huckleberry its really quite easy to find on any search here you go, took my about 20 seconds: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/trump-impeachment-inquiry-illegitimate-ten-reasons-why/ as for the rest, and how it all looks so biased, a bias based not on anything- indeed these sentiments were evident before inauguration, like in any law proceeding, any member of a jury or a judge or a witness, cannot have a pre-determined bias against a defendant. if they do, it is grounds for a mistrial or a retrial. the democrats are clearly biased and have been the whole time. they set out to try to remove trump, they just had to wait to get what they needed and if you cant see how this is damaging the country, then you are just not looking as for the things not being done by congress, those are examples i gave. They are obvious ones. if you watched any of the hearings, you would have heard GOP members listing what hearings they were NOT having. you cannot just say something is a strawman just because you do not want to hear it BOTH parties in Congress are using the impeachment as a reason to do quite little. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/nov/14/what-congress-doing-besides-impeachment/ and you totally ignored my first bullet. thats ok, its a disease thats spreading like wildfire. that is, no one can seem to have an opinion on this unless they are either totally against or totally for impeachment. instead, people like you try to shut down the speech and opinion of someone like me. And, its exactly where both of the party's want us to be-fighting each other. good for distraction and great for the media. me? outsider, libertarian. But I may actually go with a major party this time if the dems nominate Gabbard, Yang or Mayor Pete and support of independents for impeachment. it has constantly been below 50%. it rose a bit with the further release of the Ukraine phone call, now it has been dropping important because in recent Presidential elections, it is the ind voters who have decided the winner. ex: their pattern of voting for Obama 08, Obama 12, Trump 16 Support for impeachment by party--and the dems don't get to say "we are doing the work of the people on impeachment" and then say "polls don't matter". polls reflect the will of the people well, dont know how to put a chart in here from another site, but you can find it here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/ and here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/public_approval_of_the_impeachment_and_removal_of_president_trump-6957.html

how do i add to my profile items like personal info and location? i am assuming those exist like in other forums? i dont believe i have ever used a forum on this type of platform before / used xenforo and vbulletin mainly thxs

Hello, new here..... on this, a few thoughts,I'll just put them as "bullets" for brevity (I could go on and on and on) -I am NOT a Trump supporter. Back in the 90's I saw him interviewed on TV, 20/20 or something. He struck me as a callous ass who thought he was entitled to everything he had. Yes, people should be proud of their accomplishments, he seemed to be somewhere far above proud though. I find myself having to 'preamble' myself on this topic because it seems whenever someone has some little criticism of the democrats and this impeachment process, they get labeled immediately as a 'MAGA hat wearing racist Trump supporter'--yeah not me. Didn't vote for him--didn't vote for Hillary either So while I don't think Trump should be President, this impeachment ordeal is bad for the country, nothing is being done for the everyday benefit of everyday Americans. It is a lot like medieval England where the different branches of royalty fought over the crown. The poor saps dying in ditches then didn't benefit from this at all, they were just dragged along into the fray. None of us poor saps of today will benefit from this either. Instead the homeless situation will go unacted upon, drug prices will go unlooked at by Congress, as well as all manner of other items of the People's business. -The way the democrats are going about this attempted ousting of Trump is very tainted by their personal contempt for him. They were mad before he even had a chance to do anything official--like on the day after the 2016 election. Protests, near riots, burning cars in the streets.And then people coming out with things like 'the resistance has formed'. 'the coup has begun, impeachment will follow' and the like way back in 2016, all serve to give a type of non-legitimacy to the impeachment process. It has become a crusade where the ending desired was put far ahead of the material needed to achieve the end. The democrats have therefore been a party with a stated goal but with no way to get there- Comey, Mueller report, Stormy Daniels. all of that flopped. -Those in America that did vote for him and support him still, will NOT be swayed by any of this. Just as the democrats will never give Trump credit for any of the good things he has done -like the first steps program, or declaring the opioid crisis a national health emergency- the Trump supports are likewise entrenched in their beliefs more important to the democratic presidential hopes is the fact that many independents are not swayed yet either. If they cannot get them on their side, they will not win. -Lastly-for now- is the perception by said groups that impeachment just looks like 'cheating'. To explain, to many Americans, doing this is like a short cut to get rid of him, as if the Dem's know they will have a tough time in 2020 at the election, so they are trying to get rid of him by a loophole/technicality/bad refereeing. Like when a person in a barfight pulls out a knife instead of 'fighting fair'. Follow? I don't hold to this myself, but it is what I hear and read from many other people's opinions. This just makes his supporters even more supportive and shows independents that the democrats are desperate, and why would they want a desperate party taking over the White House? The dems should be convincing people why any of their candidates would be better as President, better for the nation. You don't do this by saying "i wont be Trump". We are tired of that, stop telling us how bad he is, tell us how good you can be. Sorry if I broke any rules..I did read them..really