SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
More (and ongoing) developments on the Whistleblower/Ukraine thing:
House Speaker Pelosi has begun an inquiry into impeachment of the president:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/24/763700264/trumps-ukraine-call-may-be-game-changer-on-impeachment
The (live at the time of this submission: 2019-09-26 14:30 UTC) House Intelligence interview of the Acting Director of National Security:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-49841920
The unclassified-version of the whistleblower complaint was released:
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
As was the memo/pseudo-transcript (not 100% guaranteed as they are hand-typed, no recordings of calls are made any more in the US in the aftermath of Watergate) on the call between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy[*]:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
[*] Yes, Zelenskyy, see: Zelensky, Zelenskiy, Zelenskyy: spelling confusion doesn't help Ukraine.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Saturday September 28 2019, @08:58AM (28 children)
It is strange that this case seems fueled by Trump himself, the standard procedure would have been to not discuss anything. Unless Trump likes to be victimized. Democrats invoking the Constitution when a president asks another for a personal favor is not going to sway much the people who remembers what Dems did to their own side when competing, and who advocate the illegal violation of your own borders, hypocritically considering a social engineering op as Charity. We'll see if Trump's circle has something up his sleeve. A result is already achieved, replicate the usual false dichotomy between Dems and reps.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday September 28 2019, @09:53AM (22 children)
I tend to agree: this is a trap, and the Democrats have walked right into it. Interesting: the "whistleblower" only reported hearsay. Essentially no court will accept hearsay as evidence - but Congress is supposed to, for something as serious as impeachment? The transcripts are absolutely not a problem for Trump. The Obama administration (in the person of Biden) pressured the Ukraine to dismiss their prosecutor - this is documented fact. The transcripts, read neutrally, simply represent the President reassuring the Ukraine that this political pressure is now gone.
I think Trump sees a chance to let the Democrats eviscerate themselves. Trying to impeach a sitting President, based on such flimsy evidence? Forget it, not going to happen.
Any impeachment hearings will air dirty laundry from Biden, Hillary and the entire Obama administration. Do the Democrats really know what is likely to be exposed? Just before the elections? I don't think they've thought this through...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:39PM (18 children)
Fine by me. The last president we had with a shred of honor was Carter. Obama looked the part but his civil rights record and the whole extrajudicial dronebombing of an American citizen on foreign soil thing ruined it. I'd be fine if the legacy and families of every president since Nixon, Carter again excepted, ended in prison and humiliation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:32PM
(note to self -- come back and mod up when points recycle)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday September 28 2019, @05:35PM (16 children)
Carter was the last president with a shred of honor? You're not wrong, but you could go farther: he may be the only such President since Truman.
Of course, that is also why he wasn't re-elected: if you're not corrupt, how can the political machine control you?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 28 2019, @06:20PM (15 children)
if you're not corrupt, how can the political machine control you?
That's up to the voters, isn't it? Anybody figure out yet what compels them to vote for more corruption?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday September 29 2019, @06:39PM (14 children)
Advertisements, which are purchased using money the politicans get in exchange for being corrupt.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @06:47PM (13 children)
Advertisements
Yeah, ok, so? You believe everything a politician puts up on the radio and TV? Is it not worth the effort to do background checks on these people before voting for them?
The chronic corruption problem in American politics lies directly on the voters who won't vote them out. The politician is a reflection. Not a very good one, is it?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday September 29 2019, @07:07PM (12 children)
No maaan, the last presidential candidate I voted for belonged to neither party. I'm a part of some problems, but not this one. You're just being pissy about reality being a shitty place to exist, don't direct your incontrollable bladder at the leg of the messenger. "Advertisements" is actually the statistically sound answer to the question you raised. Who spends more on advertisements is a really good predictor of who wins. The voters don't rationally choose to vote in corruption, they just watch campaign ads sponsored by industry X telling them to be afraid of candidate Y, so they say "well I don't like Z, but at least they're better than Y!" It's not even obvious how to stop this cycle without restricting either wealth or speech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @07:27PM (11 children)
The voters don't rationally choose to vote in corruption
Ok! And whose fault is that?? The real issue is the voters, not the politicians. You're taking this personally. I can't help that, but it does cloud your judgement.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday September 29 2019, @07:44PM (10 children)
You seem to be making a bad attempt a provocative asshole schtick, so I'm doing the same back. Don't have a cow, man.
It's a systemic problem, there's no more "fault" in this situation than there is fault in a fly who lands in a honey trap. You originally asked if anybody knew what compelled voters to behave the way they do, and I politely provided you a pretty good answer. Now you want me to assign fault? Take your "good" and "evil" bullshit back to whatever brand of Church you were molested into, I was answering a question about an amoral human system -- not trying to assign blame to specific cogs in the sausage making factory. Do you have a voter denigration fetish or something?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @07:53PM (9 children)
Nothing to do with good and evil. That is extraneous bullshit. It's about personal choice and who is responsible. Apparently even you are in denial.
So, everybody wags the dog, the world trudges on..
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday September 29 2019, @07:57PM (8 children)
If people behave predictably in a given system, what is responsible for the behavior: the people, or the system?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @08:13PM (7 children)
The people, obviously. The system wasn't "given" to them, they made it, and they maintain it. People have to accept that they have a choice, and that they are responsible. Why the obtuseness? I mean, I know why, but why?
Understand that, for humans, the choice to be Pavlov's dog is a choice, even if made passively
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday September 29 2019, @08:33PM (6 children)
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by choice (though I have a guess). If you mean it in a sense that includes Alpha Go "choosing" to make moves, I agree that humans have choice -- but so does the supervenient system of humans. If you mean it in a mushy biocentric "OMG FREEEE WIIIIILL" sort of way, I'm gonna go back to calling your beliefs good and evil bullshit. I feel like there is a systems analysis question wrapped up with a moralising who-should-we-blame question, and I only really believe in one of those things. Yet, you claim this isn't about good and evil bullshit. Why yes, this is a bit hard for me to understand.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @09:19PM (5 children)
I'm gonna go back to calling your beliefs good and evil bullshit.
Whatever... your choice :-)
The reality boils down to simple physics. Superficial bullshit ain't my thing.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday September 29 2019, @09:40PM (4 children)
Simple physics of choice and blame? Ooookay man, best of luck getting those papers published. The Institute of Noetic Sciences might be interested in collaborating with you, FWIW...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:03PM (3 children)
Simple physics of choice and blame?
Yes, simple electrochemical energy drives it all. Oh wait, you're not a dualist, are you?? That would definitely blind you to the connection.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:56PM (2 children)
Not a dualist. I feel like that cookie has to crumble one of two ways:
* Consciousness is a part of base reality, and even electrons are conscious on some level.
* Consciousness is a supervenient phenomenon implemented on top of base reality, and swapping out the details of base reality doesn't have to affect the higher-order mechanisms of consciousness built atop it -- we aren't really real in the most base sense of the word, we're just along for the ride.
I'm pretty agnostic as to which of these is true, and I'm not sure that we can test between the two even in theory. Note that without invoking something extra neither option leads us to a meaningful understanding of "choice," other than in the sense of "this system is so complex and/or chaotic that our most useful way of modelling it is to treat it as a black box which does things we don't fully understand." That's only a clever basis for "blame" if you're trying to train that opaque system through negative reinforcement, and I think that's roughly why we evolved/invented the concept of blame. It's sometimes a useful concept for achieving goals, but it doesn't really correspond to reality at all. "Blame" isn't something that can be objectively debated, outside of discussing which subsystem is to "blame" for a supersystem failing, or something like that.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 29 2019, @11:35PM (1 child)
I am only pointing out the absurdity of people who blame all their troubles on a system that we all ourselves run. All choices, whether to resist or submit (fight or flight), are strictly personal, a personal reaction to one's environment, including all the sociological (peer) pressure. It is our choices as group that shape the system. As a group we can turn on a dime, just that easy [youtube.com]. You should know that each individual in that film is seeking out its own personal advantage for the best spot for the night. From the right distance I'm sure we look exactly the same.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday September 30 2019, @12:26AM
The flock is more than the sum of the birds; it is the product of every message passed to and from every bird. The bird is more than the sum of it's organs, the brain more than the sum of it's neurons. Yet changing the specific implementation of a neuron, brain, or bird does not necessarily change the behavior of the flock. We could theoretically replace some of those birds with replicants that moved in a sufficient similar fashion and have the flock as a whole behave as before. We're talking about systems which emerge on top of the messages passed between subsystems. If we're going to "blame" people for the way the system functions we might as well go down to the next subvenient set of systems and blame the people's neurons, or the molecules those neurons are made of, or the atoms those molecules are made of, or the fermions and bosons those atoms are made of, or the base-3 supercomputer in another dimension that those fermions and bosons are implemented on top of, or the base-12 superdupercomputer another dimension below that...
I think we have a tendency to focus on the level of "people" because that has been a useful strategy for navigating the world and copying our patterns. Of course no level really matters any more or less than another, but I think higher-order systems tend to be more powerful than lower order systems, so "blaming" the lower order systems for the behavior of higher order systems is, like, technically causally true, but also missing the bigger picture (and something that we tend to do down to the level of people, but not past it).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:26PM
I'll put aside whether or not there was wrongdoing, I think we can all agree that there is the strong appearance of wrongdoing (either due to it actually being abuse of power or it being a setup). As far as I can tell, you have two options.
1) Do nothing.
2) React and pursue whatever remedy you can, including impeachment.
The first option puts politics ahead of principles. It's the same argument which says, "sure he's a corrupt bully strongman, but he's our man in Tehran." It leads to a degradation of principles and a creation of a banana republic. While I can understand wanting to do that to a foreign group such that they support me, I do not want to live in a country with rampant corruption and strong-man rule.
I personally view the pardoning of Nixon to have been a big mistake. It sent the precedent that Presidents will never be held accountable for their actions. If we fail to at least attempt to impeach Trump with such an obvious appearance of misuse of power (trap or otherwise), what message will that send?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28 2019, @04:35PM
The whistleblower filed a compalint not a court document. It cites what they believe to be suspicious behavior. It needs to be investigated. What don't you understand about that?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday September 28 2019, @06:31PM
Any impeachment hearings will air dirty laundry from Biden, Hillary and the entire Obama administration. Do the Democrats really know what is likely to be exposed?
I have been trying to get this point across for a very long time. Discovery will burn down the house... if people care to vote out the corruption, that is.
I still expect the regular 95% reelection rates in this next cycle and in the foreseeable future. Despite the ongoing circus, little will change, one or two percentage points in both houses at the most.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Saturday September 28 2019, @10:41AM (2 children)
Trump had that transcript on tap and ready to drop as soon as they asked for it.
The Democratic House will impeach him, the Senate will acquit him after the nation gets to watch Biden brag about doing the same thing Trump is accused of over and over and over again for a few weeks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
This is not news, this has been out for a long time. But the mainstream media just ignores it. Now they have to report it.
The impeachment was pretty much a given. There's been a strong push for it dating back even before the inauguration. It was going to happen.
But when, over what? That's all Trump could control. So he dropped a little bait and hoped they'd go for it and lo and behold, they just couldn't resist it.
Well the good news is that Biden won't be President. The Bad news is that Trump will probably get a second term, and follow the historical pattern of abandoning all pretense of being under the law subsequently.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:59PM (1 child)
Aside from Hillary loyalists, I think most people see the fact that they've been trying to impeach before he even took office, as evidence that their claims are hot air or sour grapes, and among those who do see it as a political hit job, are many who don't actually like Trump. I am in this group but I view the Democrats' action as a petty desperate scramble and an attempt to win by cheating (which doesn't surprise considering the deeply offensive primary process for 2016).
I also think there are plenty of voters who don't like Trump personally, but don't hate his presidency either. I'm in this camp mostly because he hasn't started any new wars (at least not yet) and stopped (or at least postponed) the TPP. You can't give Obama that sort of praise. I guess where I'm at is that between Trump and the DNC, they both look awful but at least Trump hasn't been out there starting wars, killing people, and laughing about it. The other part of this equation is that Obama eviscerated many voters' trust when Hope and Change turned into GWB 2.0. It makes it difficult to believe that the next hope/change-Democrat is going to act anything like the campaign propaganda.
Democrats need to learn that nostalgia for who they were in the 70s and pretty rhetoric will only go so far. People want to see Democrats do something that helps improve their lives, rather than trade sweetheart deals between themselves, run impeachment show-trials, and start or extend expensive deadly imperialist wars.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28 2019, @06:32PM
This is why Biden promises "no change": https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-nothing-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/ [salon.com]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:28PM
More likely the collectivist dems want Biden out. That's why pelosi can't stop it. Then they do it in a way that makes it seem like they're going after trump. They were hoping for a two-for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 28 2019, @02:52PM
lol he playing 3D chess