Gathering evidence to support taking such action is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. — aletheist

That's not correct, where did you get that from? It's Congress's responsibility otherwise you would typically have no witnesses during an impeachment 'trial'.

As far Court's, Dumpertrumper blocked everything so that it would go interminably to the Supreme Court. Clearly obstruction there, particularly in light of all previous impeachment hearings the president's allowed some documents.

Explain what is incorrect in stating that this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses?

Regarding inference, this is what you're basically saying. If I get a ticket in traffic court and I want to exonerate myself I would bring witnesses. The partisan Senate did not want witnesses. Two inferences can be made:

1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and coobberate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader.

Therefore they did not do their job and the trial was a sham. It was predetermined in advance. Nixon and Clinton had a regular trial, right?

Explain what is incorrect in stating that this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses?

There was seventeen witnesses.

Explain what is incorrect in stating that this is the first impeachment trial without witnesses? — 3017amen

Nothing, but that is not what you said.

This is the first Impeachment without witnesses. — 3017amen

There were witnesses for the House impeachment--although only certain ones that the Democrats wanted, and many of them testified only in secret--just none for the Senate trial.

If I get a ticket in traffic court and I want to exonerate myself I would bring witnesses. — 3017amen

Or you could come by yourself, and if the police officer who issued the ticket did not show up, then the judge would find you not guilty. In this case, it was not the defendant who primarily wanted to call witnesses, but the prosecutors--because they failed to do a sufficiently thorough job with the grand jury (House) that produced the indictment (impeachment).

Two inferences can be made:
1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and coobberate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader. — 3017amen

3. They did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. Also, your #1 again suggests that emotion--not logic--is guiding your responses.

Nixon and Clinton had a regular trial, right? — 3017amen

Nixon resigned before being impeached, let alone tried; I assume that you meant Andrew Johnson. And no, there is nothing "regular" about any Senate impeachment trial of a sitting president--especially one initiated by the House on a strictly partisan basis.

There were witnesses for the House impeachment--although only certain ones that the Democrats wanted, and many of them testified only in secret--just none for the Senate trial. — aletheist

That's not correct. It was a bipartisan hearing room. Pretty typical stiff. (Although Ken Starr during the Clinton impeachment did a lot of secrete depositions).Do you listen to Fox news? LOL

Or you could come by yourself, and if the police officer who issued the ticket did not show up, then the judge would find you not guilty. In this case, it was not the defendant who primarily wanted to call witnesses, but the prosecutors--because they failed to do a sufficiently thorough job with the grand jury (House) that produced the indictment (impeachment). — aletheist

Fake news, again. The Congress (House and Senate) have the responsibility to perform the hearing/trial. Again using logical inference, explain this:

1. They feared witnesses would incriminate and corroborate Dumpertrumper's behavior.
2. [Or] They would want to exculpate and thus exonerate their parties leader.

They did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. Also, your #1 again suggests that emotion--not logic--is guiding your responses. — aletheist

Correct, we agree!! The Republican's fear retribution from Dumpertrumper because they want to get re=elected. Correct? The GOP is very emotional indeed!!! LOL

There was seventeen witnesses. — NOS4A2

Were any of them in the Senate ? LOL

It was a bipartisan hearing room. — 3017amen

The Republicans in the room were not allowed to call any witnesses of their own, and were restricted in their questioning of the witnesses who did appear.

The Republican's fear retribution from Dumpertrumper because they want to get re=elected. Correct? — 3017amen

Maybe in some cases, definitely not in others; but once again, this is an attempt to discern motives rather than sticking to facts.

The GOP is very emotional indeed! — 3017amen

Says the person who refers to the duly elected President of the United States as "Dumpertrumper."

The Republicans in the room were not allowed to call any witnesses of their own, and were restricted in their questioning of the witnesses who did appear. — aletheist

Do you mean 'moderate' questioning like any other Majority leader would moderate?

Says the person who refers to the duly elected President of the United States as "Dumpertrumper." — aletheist

Well, I wanted to say a misogynist or liar (Stormy Daniel's denial, TMZ audio tape, Parnes audio tape, denial of Russian interference-campaign team violations/incarcerations, crowd size, ad nauseum), but that would only be stating a fact.

Oh, wait, taking a dump is considered one the facts of life, so you stand corrected!! LOL

In every case, it’s putting political expediency and fear of Dear Leader above principle and law.

I find that most of the political rhetoric is more emotion than logic, so I'm taking a step away from it.

Hey IBB!

Don't be afraid of yourself; truth is beauty, beauty is truth. That is all ye know and that is all ye need to know!!

Welcome to the forum!!

Thank you, I tend to agree with that sentiment lately.

Ok he was impeached. Happy now? The American people are tuning out. The Dems want to run health care for 300 million but can't count 170,000 votes in a small state. James Carville among others see the coming Dem disaster. He says We're losing our damn minds. The Dems are going the way of the whigs. Why? Because Pelosi, who for most of 2019 said a partisan impeachment would be wrong, gave in to the AOC wing of the party and ran a partisan impeachment. So like I say: Happy now? This really what y'all wanted?

The Dems want to run health care for 300 million but can't count 170,000 votes in a small state. — fishfry

That's a silly, political slogan that appeals to the ignorant.

I'm a retired project manager and software developer. There are robust ways to run projects and develop software, and there are poor ways. Political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm a retired project manager and software developer. There are robust ways to run projects and develop software, and there are poor ways. Political ideology has absolutely nothing to do with it. — Relativist

You must not be following the detailed news from Iowa. It was all politics. Crony contracts given to Hillary and Pete associates. Look it up. It was bad project management, sure. Caused by the political cronyism. And plenty of old-fashioned fraud too. Bernie votes "accidentally" given to Deval Patric. Oddly, all the accidents went in the same direction, against Bernie. You should look into the actual news about what's going on in Iowa.

And maybe you forgot the Obamacare website rollout. Was forgetting to build a backend just bad project management? Or bad project management as a result of crony contracts?

They put their secret call-in phone number on the Internet, so naturally trolls called it and tied up the lines. As would happen if you posted your phone number online in the context of a widely-read news story. And now the Dems are blaming Trump supporters. Is that what you call good project management?

If you're trying to say that the problems in Iowa are just accidental software deployment issues that could happen to anyone, you are politically naive and not following the up to the minute news out of Iowa. It's a political clusterbleep, and in no way routine deployment issues.

You want to see the Dems excoriated? Read this from one of their own, longtime Clintonista James Carville.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/7/21123518/trump-2020-election-democratic-party-james-carville

If you're trying to say that the problems in Iowa are just accidental software deployment issues that could happen to anyone, you are politically naive and not following the up to the minute news out of Iowa. — fishfry

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable.

I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable. — Relativist

To say it has no bearing seems like an overstatement. If taken as a piece of data relevant to the government's (or democrats') ability properly manage complex tasks, it is clearly evidence against their ability to do so. That's not to say that it is very strong evidence. It is, after all, a small piece of data and, in isolation, it could easily be seen as inconsequential.

"Proper management" could include moral integrity or general types of competence or both. The general sort of competence (e.g., technological competence) seems like a less serious issue and the data has less evidential weight in this category, since other pieces of data fishfry mentions (Obamacare website) as well as our almost universal experience with technology, show that these eventually get fixed.

The moral integrity charge is more serious. As another piece of evidence that government workers are subject to the same moral biases and failings as everyone else, and thus why many don't trust handing over more power (more programs) to the government, it would be hard to dismiss it. That is, assuming the accusation of cronyism and fraud can be substantiated. (I haven't looked into it.)

To say it has no bearing seems like an overstatement. If taken as a piece of data relevant to the government's (or democrats') ability properly manage complex tasks, it is clearly evidence against their ability to do so. That's not to say that it is very strong evidence. It is, after all, a small piece of data and, in isolation, it could easily be seen as inconsequential. — JohnRB

No. That's a purely partisan perspective, and completely irrational to suggest the party and/or ideology had ANY bearing. This was poor project management. Quality project management has nothing to do with politics. And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.

No. That's a purely partisan perspective, and completely irrational to suggest the party and/or ideology had ANY bearing. This was poor project management. — Relativist

That this was poor project management does not entail that it was not relevant to the government's or the democrats' ability to properly manage complex tasks or to the problem of moral integrity.... which leads us to your second claim which I guess is supposed to fill in that gap:

Quality project management has nothing to do with politics.

Do you mean in principle or just in this specific case? If you mean in principle, I would disagree. It's trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which a specific political party has a political philosophy which itself leads to poor project management.

But if you mean in this specific case, then I have no opinion since, as I already said, I haven't looked into it.

And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.

I'm not sure how this statement is supposed to fit in relation to the others. How exactly are you cashing out these terms? Because on some definitions and in some contexts we could say complex systems are by definition not feasible. And that complex systems exist isn't relevant to their feasibility pe se. As for the political debates that often take place, the issue is usually to what degree complex systems are able to be efficiently managed at a broad level vs an organic, close level.

That this was poor project management does not entail that it was not relevant to the government's or the democrats' ability to properly manage complex tasks or to the problem of moral integrity. — JohnRB

Why are you even revering to "the government's" or "the democrats" abilities? Quality project management skills can be bought. In this case, it seems they were not - and it's fair to blame the individuals involved, but it is not fair to generalize this into a handicap from which all Democrats suffer. I'm a Democrat, and I successfully led projects, and I'm certainly not the only one.

Do you mean in principle or just in this specific case? If you mean in principle, I would disagree. It's trivially easy to imagine a scenario in which a specific political party has a political philosophy which itself leads to poor project management. — JohnRB

In principle. Imagination doesn't establish correlation; rather it constitutes irrational prejudice when you apply it (it's trivially easy to image specfic ethnic group x as being lazy; I hope you see how ridiculous that is). Political philosophy has zero bearing on project management skills. 15 years ago, I took training something like this, and I assure you there is nothing in the methodologies or skills that is inconsistent with being a Democrat.

And neither does it imply that complex systems are infeasible - corporate America utilizes complex systems every day, and would collapse without them.

I'm not sure how this statement is supposed to fit in relation to the others. — JohnRB

It's a different issue, which I thought you might possibly have in mind - namely, that even if Democrats are neither better nor worse than others at managing projects, the mistake is to try and tackle something so complex. If this were true, one might infer that a big government program is too complex to even consider tackling. I was simply conveying that this does not follow.

The Dem establishment (here through Carville) is panicking about Sanders exactly the way the Repub establishment panicked about Trump. But Trump won... On the other hand, they may be more successful in eating themselves alive and if so, they'll have the likes of Carville and others like him to blame.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this has no bearing on whether or not healthcare is manageable. — Relativist

I agree it's a cheap clichéd talking point ("They can't run healthcare if can't even rig a small caucus"). On the other hand there's a lot of truth to it. In Iowa you had gross technical incompetence combined with crony contracts and a biased Democratic committee trying to influence the winner. All the things you DON'T want to see in the party trying to take over health care for 300 million people. I'll stand by my original remark. Cheap cliche, sure. Which in this case perfectly encapsulates a more complex and nuanced truth: That the Democrats are the last people in the world I want near the levers of power right now. And it's not just me. A lot of Democrats are starting to notice. I myself am a registered Democrat and just finished filling out my California absentee ballot. I voted for Tulsi. Now you know my politics. I"m appalled at the state of the Democrats and you should be too.

I agree it's a cheap clichéed talking point ("They can't run healthcare if can't even rig a small caucus"). On the other hand there's a lot of truth to it. In Iowa you had gross technical incompetence combined with crony contracts and a biased Democratic committee trying to influence the winner. All the things you DON'T want to see in the party trying to take over health care for 300 million people. I'll stand by my original remark. Cheap cliche, sure. Which in this case perfectly encapsulates a more complex and nuanced truth: That the Democrats are the last people in the world I want near the levers of power right now. And it's not just me. A lot of Democrats are starting to notice. I myself am a registered Democrat and just finished filling out my California absentee ballot. I voted for Tulsi. Now you know my politics. I"m appalled at the state of the Democrats and you should be too. — fishfry

Through the lens of politics, it's unfortunate there were screw-ups. Even the alleged sticking of a thumb on the scales is a screw-up: processes should have been in place to prevent it. And actually, I understand that there actually were mechanisms to correct for this, but it takes time to correct through the paper trail.

However, considering this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to apply reasonable epistemology and exercise critical reasoning. It is NOT good epistemology to treat this as a problem in the DNA or developmental environment of Democrats. Analyze what went wrong, identify what can be done to prevent a recurrence, and find ways to prevent it. It doesn't mean Democrats can't do complex projects right. It doesn't mean a public option for health care (or a single payer system) is a non-starter because of incompetence by Democrats or because the complexity is beyond human capability. However, it SHOULD wake everybody up to the fact that complex policy requires (non-partisan) expertise to implement right. It would also be good to educate Democrats in the law of Unintended Consequences/

Why are you even revering to "the government's" or "the democrats" abilities? Quality project management skills can be bought. In this case, it seems they were not - and it's fair to blame the individuals involved, but it is not fair to generalize this into a handicap from which all Democrats suffer. I'm a Democrat, and I successfully led projects, and I'm certainly not the only one. — Relativist

We need to distinguish between general competency and moral competency questions I mentioned earlier. Regarding the moral critique, if democrats were engaging in fraud and cronyism, then buying quality project management skills only means their fraud and cronyism is more successful.

Regarding general competency, you're focusing on the wrong point. It's correct that the failure here isn't necessarily tied to democrats qua democrats, such that had republicans or independents attempted the same task they would have succeeded. The way in which the event serves as a piece of data against democrats is at a different level.

Imagine there is a political party called the Whips and a key part of their political philosophy is that all people are secretly sadomasochistic and respond best to being whipped. Because of their political philosophy, at their first Iowa caucus they devise a plan to whip delegates into supporting them. Now let's say the plan fails because the delegates respond negatively to the whipping.

On the one hand, it's not as though the negative outcome was unique to the Whips, such that had Democrats employed the whipping strategy they would have been successful.

On the other hand, it's obvious that the problem is uniquely attributable to the Whips insofar as their political philosophy motivates them to employ methods that don't align with the reality of the way things are or the way things work.

This applies to democrats in the following way. One common plank in conservatism is the idea that bureaucratic expertise is a myth and trying to control complex systems with relatively few people who are several hops away from the point of action is less efficient and more error prone. One common plank in leftism is the idea that the bureaucratic expertise of the few is the best method (often seen as the only method) for solving complex problems that are several hops away from the point of action.

It's in this way that the failure of the Iowa caucus is a piece of data against the sort of technocratic overconfidence that Democrats are prone to.

Imagination doesn't establish correlation

The point of my thought experiment wasn't to establish correlation. If we're trying to see if something x has nothing to do with y, in principle, then I don't need to establish a correlation.

(it's trivially easy to image specfic ethnic group x as being lazy; I hope you see how ridiculous that is).

I guess this is supposed to be a counter-example? I didn't imagine democrats were bad at project management and then, on that basis, claim that democrats were bad at project management.

Political philosophy has zero bearing on project management skills.

My Whips examples demonstrates that this isn't true as a matter of principle.

It's a different issue, which I thought you might possibly have in mind - namely, that even if Democrats are neither better nor worse than others at managing projects, the mistake is to try and tackle something so complex. If this were true, one might infer that a big government program is too complex to even consider tackling. I was simply conveying that this does not follow.

The question isn't whether successfully tackling complex systems is possible, but how best to tackle complex systems.

The Republican tax code is pretty complex. The Social Security system of benefits is simple. You’re being an absolutist. Sometimes Democratic policies are better by design. Sometimes the private sector is better. I wouldn’t want the government making my cars, for example. Medicare is very popular and works quite well, as a counter example.

You’re being an absolutist. — Noah Te Stroete

You're not reading carefully. I didn't make any absolute claim about complex systems.

My bad. But didn’t you say that Democratic policies are generally failures? Or at least their implementation?

Through the lens of politics, it's unfortunate there were screw-ups. Even the alleged sticking of a thumb on the scales is a screw-up: processes should have been in place to prevent it. And actually, I understand that there actually were mechanisms to correct for this, but it takes time to correct through the paper trail. — Relativist

In my opinion you are either tragically naive or in denial about the perfidy of the Democrats.

Here's Caitlyn Johnstone, far more eloquent than me but of a similar mind.

The Myth Of Incompetence: DNC Scandals Are A Feature, Not A Bug

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-myth-of-incompetence-dnc-scandals-are-a-feature-not-a-bug-4f264352d4f7

Vice got the source code for the famous "app" that caused all the trouble. They discovered that it's basically an off-the-shelf demo project that's been cookie-cutter enhanced by people cutting and pasting solutions they looked up on javascript tutorials. In other words the very lowest kind of crap hack work.

So what happened is that after 2016 some Hillary and Obama hacks said, Hey we can make a bundle selling software to the hicks in Iowa. Of course anything "tech" sounds good to people who don't know how fucked up tech can be. So these political consultants now need to build and app, and being idiots they don't go out and hire the kind of professionals who know how to build production quality software that holds up to high transaction volumes. Instead they farm it out to bootcamp grads and worse.

And then when it "just happened" that this mess turned out to benefit Pete and hurt Bernie ... then the DNC was all-in! None of this is excusable as normal software rollout shit. This is an organization in freefall, malevolent and stupid.

If you want me to believe that this single instance does not prove the whole; and that I shouldn't be the least bit bothered by grandiose schemes to radically transform the US economy and in particular everyone's health care; I'm sorry, I am not buying it.

Here's the article about the reverse engineering of the app.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8ajj/an-off-the-shelf-skeleton-project-experts-analyze-the-app-that-broke-iowa

However, considering this is a philosophy forum, I think it's appropriate to apply reasonable epistemology and exercise critical reasoning. It is NOT good epistemology to treat this as a problem in the DNA or developmental environment of Democrats. Analyze what went wrong, identify what can be done to prevent a recurrence, and find ways to prevent it. It doesn't mean Democrats can't do complex projects right. It doesn't mean a public option for health care (or a single payer system) is a non-starter because of incompetence by Democrats or because the complexity is beyond human capability. However, it SHOULD wake everybody up to the fact that complex policy requires (non-partisan) expertise to implement right. It would also be good to educate Democrats in the law of Unintended Consequences/ — Relativist

As an abstract point of logic, one screwed up caucus in a tiny state does not necessarily imply that health care reform is impossible.

One incident doesn't mean the Democrats can't do a project right. But if you look at their track record the last few years, and -- you'll have to pardon me but this is how I see it -- the sheer insanity that's gripped the party, culminating in Nancy Pelosi grimacing and smirking behind Trump all night long before ripping up his speech behind his back, on camera; have rendered the Democrats unfit to govern.

I believe that in November the American people will agree with me. We shall see.

Yes I do get that you are making a point of logic. But Iowa's not just one incident. It's the latest incident in a very long string of incidents going back to the effing Russiagate hysteria, cooked up by Robby Mook and John Podesta the night of the election so they wouldn't have to answer for why they ran the worst campaign in US history, losing an election to Donald Trump.

They, and Hillary, were unwilling to take responsibility or assent to the legitimacy of Trump's victory. The hysteria and insanity they unleashed are tearing this country apart. So in the end I can not credit your point. In the totality of circumstance, Iowa IS determinative of who they are. Grifters and cheaters who can't even do that well.

Republicans have no scandals? In fact they do, but they are just unashamed and exempt from accountability. Voter suppression, anyone?

Politicians for the most part from either party are foremost about their own survival. Don’t fool yourself that you’re on the correct side.

There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.