Trump's Second Impeachment - A jump to conclusions

[Revoltingest]

It's gaslighting when telling someone, "he was only joking" to some serious comment, insult, or injury. Gaslighting is when you try to make people doubt what they clearly saw and heard. It preys about your good will to manipulate you into not holding them to account. I think after 4 years of it, most people are not willing to go there with him anymore. The tides appear to have finally turned.

The modern definition of "gaslighting"....
The other side is not merely wrong.
They don't believe what they say.
And are trying to brainwash one.
(Patrick Hamilton is rolling over in his grave.)

People are rarely that clever & machiavellian.
They generally really believe the loopy things they say.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

These are pretty weak examples, and nothing compared to the years of villifying and demonization of Democrats by Republicans--and certainly nothing compared to Trump and his allies who literally call for shooting, hanging etc of their political enemies.

Trump has called for shootings?

Did you know that the president said the following on January 6, the day of the riot:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Source: What Trump said in rally speech to spark U.S. Capitol storming (palmbeachpost.com)

I suppose we are to ignore that evidence, not even consider it as anything going towards his intent, and just impeach, impeach, impeach - with 7 days left!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep bringing up that it's not required by the Constitution, but do you find that to be a good thing? Such a process would amount to jumping to conclusions.

That is the constitution. That is what it says. They follow the constitution and that is a good thing. Don't you want to follow the constitution?

 

[Orbit]

Trump has called for shootings?

Did you know that the president said the following on January 6, the day of the riot:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Source: What Trump said in rally speech to spark U.S. Capitol storming (palmbeachpost.com)

I suppose we are to ignore that evidence, not even consider it as anything going towards his intent, and just impeach, impeach, impeach - with 7 days left!

Compare to: These are the violent threats that made Amazon drop Parler

ETA - Cherry picking one sentence from that Trump speech is disingenuous. You're trying to defend sedition, and I'm not having it.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

That is the constitution. That is what it says. They follow the constitution and that is a good thing. Don't you want to follow the constitution?

I want to follow logic and evidence. That is also a good thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Trump has called for shootings?

Did you know that the president said the following on January 6, the day of the riot:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Source: What Trump said in rally speech to spark U.S. Capitol storming (palmbeachpost.com)

I suppose we are to ignore that evidence, not even consider it as anything going towards his intent, and just impeach, impeach, impeach - with 7 days left!

We are doing politics. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. As long as we can't agree and you keep applying a standard what is not relevant for impeachment, then I can posting that you don't understand what you are talking about.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

Compare to: These are the violent threats that made Amazon drop Parler

ETA - Cherry picking one sentence from that Trump speech is disingenuous. You're trying to defend sedition, and I'm not having it.

I agree that those were examples of violent posts. That's one reason I didn't drop my Amazon account. Decided to look into it first. Parler should acquire staff to moderate those types of comments.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I want to follow logic and evidence. That is also a good thing.

No, because you ignore the constitution.

 

[Lyndon]

Trump has called for shootings?

Did you know that the president said the following on January 6, the day of the riot:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Source: What Trump said in rally speech to spark U.S. Capitol storming (palmbeachpost.com)

I suppose we are to ignore that evidence, not even consider it as anything going towards his intent, and just impeach, impeach, impeach - with 7 days left!

sorry but your link does not have anything close to that quote, I call fake news on you.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

sorry but your link does not have anything close to that quote, I call fake news on you.

This is more of a case of bad research on your part... Here goes the relevant section:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is more of a case of bad research on your part... Here goes the relevant section:
View attachment 46934

Yeah, that is the evidence: Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.

He in effect lied about what has happen and that is in part what led to the assault on the Capitol.
See, it wasn't that hard to find the evidence. It is all in the public. There is no need for an investigation.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, but that's not gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a process of confusing and breaking down someone to the point they become unsure of themselves, confused, and mentally breaking them by constantly doubting and questioning and ridicule and challenging someone's thoughts and conclusion. It's an extreme form of "this isn't what it seems" and attempting to break someone down until they agree with their abuser.

But isn't that what we are seeing him attempting to do with us? "It was a perfect phone call"; "Everything I said [at the insecurrection] was appropriate". It takes those who try to give the benefit of the doubt, and brazenly lies to them. That manipulation may not work with everyone, but these lies are not targeted for them, but to those he can convince that the doubts they may have about him, are not real. If they have them, there's something wrong with them, and that is where loyalty tests and such apply.

I look at this in terms of types of behaviors and the ways in which there are performed. Gaslighting can in fact be applied to groups. This one person's article is an interesting read. What is gaslighting in cults & toxic groups?.

“Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim’s belief. Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim"
​

The Wiki article on Gaslighting as well speaks of how it can be applied to groups: Gaslighting - Wikipedia

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgement.[1] It may evoke changes in them such as cognitive dissonance or low self-esteem, rendering the victim additionally dependent on the gaslighter for emotional support and validation. Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs.​

I think gaslighting is appropriately being applied to Trump. It also, interestingly enough is a thing that is common with people with narcissistic personalities, it is reported, not that I am professionally diagnosing Trump as a licenced psychologist here. But based upon everything I have seen, as well as listening to professionals who are saying so, whether ethically appropriate for them or not, appears to all align.

 

[exchemist]

A prima facie case is the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption. A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party.
Prima facie | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Was there room for a rebuttal? There was a debate but everyone had their minds made up already. No one engaged each other's arguments. I'm taking the time here to explain why your argument is wrong, and if you can't give a logical or evidence based rebuttal, then your argument fails. This is rushed - a 3 to 5 day impeachment process? What a record!

What utter nonsense. Trump indicated the date to gather, weeks in advance, Trump whipped up their indignation and told them to fight and never give up, for a demonstrable falsehood, as did his personal lawyer while Trump looked on approvingly, and Trump told them to march on the Capitol. Trump's constant repetition of his Big Lie about the election result could be argued - on its own - was reason enough to impeach, never mind his incitement of the insurrection.

Forget it.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

Yeah, that is the evidence: Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.

He in effect lied about what has happen and that is in part what led to the assault on the Capitol.
See, it wasn't that hard to find the evidence. It is all in the public. There is no need for an investigation.

I would only agree with you if having that belief could only led to violence, but that is not the case. It can also lead some to push for more stringent voting laws. It may also lead some to peaceful protest, and despite the media only focusing on the violent protest, there were plenty of peaceful protests that day.

Either way, I still don't get how someone can miss this statement from Trump's speech and just say that he was just there to incite violence:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I didn't hear not ONE Democrat address this part of the evidence. Not one.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Spending in 2020 in total roughly doubled what was spent in 2016 in total. There's no question which of the two parties is more obligated to big money. It's obvious.

That's not news. Lets stay on topic. As I said 10 representatives have risked their positions, one of them being on the Homeland subcommittee. That's significant, and without party support they'll likely lose their positions. 10 is historic, rare; particularly in an impeachment. Its bipartisan enough to suggest that the impeachment is based on legitimate concerns rather than party lines, and that's what matters.

 

[Windwalker]

The modern definition of "gaslighting"....
The other side is not merely wrong.
They don't believe what they say.
And are trying to brainwash one.
(Patrick Hamilton is rolling over in his grave.)

People are rarely that clever & machiavellian.
They generally really believe the loopy things they say.

Your optimism at times is so saccharine, it borders upon denialism. Just remember, it was you who poo-pooed those of us who knew Trump was not going to concede, long, long ago, before the election as "hysterical". This is no different.

There is a medium place between cynicism and denialism, one that gives the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't not shy away from calling out a lie when they know it. Yes, Trump is gaslighting his followers, and those in the middle who are unsure of themselves facing a manipulator of his level. And no, once again, this is not being hysterical.

 

[exchemist]

I would only agree with you if having that belief could only led to violence, but that is not the case. It can also lead some to push for more stringent voting laws. It may also lead some to peaceful protest, and despite the media only focusing on the violent protest, there were plenty of peaceful protests that day.

Either way, I still don't get how someone can miss this statement from Trump's speech and just say that he was just there to incite violence:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I didn't hear not ONE Democrat address this part of the evidence. Not one.

Because it was just slipped in at the end to give Trump a bit of cover, after a long harangue full of lies and warlike imagery, about fighting harder than ever and never giving up, even though the election result had been crystal clear for weeks. So nobody gave a toss about one weasel word, and understandably.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your optimism at times is so saccharine, it borders upon denialism.

"Optimism"?
Nay, tis cynicism. I don't give people credit for such sophisticated
manipulation of others. Their actually believing loopy things
bespeaks my low opinion of them.
I think you've just bought into vapid feminist jargon that justifies
feeling all the more a victim of someone who dares have a
different opinion.
I disagree about things...I'm not out to drive anyone crazy.

Just remember, it was you who poo-pooed those of us who knew Trump was not going to concede, long, long ago, before the election as "hysterical". This is no different.

I predicted a Biden win, & transition Jan 20.
We shall see who's wrong in a week.

I did poo poo all of you who feared Trump was going
to be Hitler, become dictator, & kill democracy.
Revoltingest: 1
Cowering libs: 0

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would only agree with you if having that belief could only led to violence, but that is not the case. It can also lead some to push for more stringent voting laws. It may also lead some to peaceful protest, and despite the media only focusing on the violent protest, there were plenty of peaceful protests that day.

Either way, I still don't get how someone can miss this statement from Trump's speech and just say that he was just there to incite violence:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

I didn't hear not ONE Democrat address this part of the evidence. Not one.

So let us cut to the point: Either Trump had the intent to overthrow the Government or he is criminally negligent and didn't understand that he in part led to this. How: He in effect claimed that the laws was broken and that you needed to fight against that.

 

[AgnosticGuy]

So let us cut to the point: Either Trump had the intent to overthrow the Government or he is criminally negligent and didn't understand that he in part led to this. How: He in effect claimed that the laws was broken and that you needed to fight against that.

Believing that the elections were stolen doesn't mean you need to resort to violence anymore than believing that systemic racism exists in America. Sure, these issues would enrage a lot of people, but that alone can't be a reason to ban or target such speech otherwise that becomes a slippery slope leading to restrictions on speaking out against a lot of things.

In Trump's case specifically, his followers can take in all of his information and choose to protest or "fight" peacefully or lawfully. Some may react by resorting to violence, but unless Trump intended that or said literally, go shoot x,y,z then we shouldn't blame him for that. Some of his followers can conclude for themselves that they need to do more than just peaceful fighting.