ADVERTISEMENT

What we have here is a case of epistemic closure

Duck_walk

Duck_walk

Well-Known Member
Oct 17, 2002
23,081
4,231
113
The trial has put in sharp focus what Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute described as “epistemic closure” in the conservative movement: a refusal to even consider ideologically inconvenient facts, no matter how obvious.

The phenomenon infects right-wing media, including some of the president’s favorite anchors on Fox News, his supporters in Congress and the White House itself, where Trump is comfortable saying whatever seems to serve his purposes best at any moment — for example, denying he knows Giuliani’s erstwhile associate Lev Parnas, despite the existence of numerous videos and photographs of them together.
 
Not saying you are wrong. (I don’t know). Would you admit liberals are equally blinded by their hatred of Trump? How do you impeach someone without any evidence that would be convictable in a court of law?

The phone conversation was a big nothing burger. The witnesses are all second hand, and we still have no idea who the whistleblower is. They just want him out. Period. Like you.

I have a feeling Trump will be impeached at least one more time just so democrats can stain him as the most impeached President ...if the house doesn’t get flipped again.

Are you proud of Shiff, Pelosi, and Nadler? At least Schumer seems to be sane? I genuinely feel more endeared to the republicans who use logic, well reasoned arguments, and frankly to me just seem more legitimate.
 
Duck_walk said:
The trial has put in sharp focus what Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute described as “epistemic closure” in the conservative movement: a refusal to even consider ideologically inconvenient facts, no matter how obvious.

The phenomenon infects right-wing media, including some of the president’s favorite anchors on Fox News, his supporters in Congress and the White House itself, where Trump is comfortable saying whatever seems to serve his purposes best at any moment — for example, denying he knows Giuliani’s erstwhile associate Lev Parnas, despite the existence of numerous videos and photographs of them together.
Click to expand...
I will take my chances with better people.
A communist with violent sounding staff workers is leading the Polls. Though fewer numbers of young people support Bernie than in 2016, his ideas and supporters have been spread out among the candidates in the party. Proof that our universities are spreading lies in order to teach our children to vote themselves into slavery.
The Democrats condemned Donald Trump for 24 straight hours on the Senate floor this week. Not once did they mention any action by Trump that endangered our freedoms.
 
Last edited:
you_dont_know_me said:
Not saying you are wrong. (I don’t know). Would you admit liberals are equally blinded by their hatred of Trump? How do you impeach someone without any evidence that would be convictable in a court of law?

The phone conversation was a big nothing burger. The witnesses are all second hand, and we still have no idea who the whistleblower is. They just want him out. Period. Like you.

I have a feeling Trump will be impeached at least one more time just so democrats can stain him as the most impeached President ...if the house doesn’t get flipped again.

Are you proud of Shiff, Pelosi, and Nadler? At least Schumer seems to be sane? I genuinely feel more endeared to the republicans who use logic, well reasoned arguments, and frankly to me just seem more legitimate.
Click to expand...

Word for word, your response is exactly what this man is talking about.

This isn’t about hating the man. He should have been impeached two years ago over the emoluments clause alone. The fact that they have let him spend millions of government money at his own businesses has set a horrendous precedent.

Schiff is a brilliant presenter who has laid out the facts of the case. The phone call you keep referring to is less than one half of 1% of the case. It’s obvious you didn’t watch much of the presentation just like you didn’t read the Mueller report.

It’s about what he did, not who he is.
 
So you aren’t blinded by hatred of the man?

Why did this whole preceding start? The phone call. What case does Schiff have? Apparently republicans are scared trump is going to put dissenters heads an a pike?

The same Schiff who wouldn’t testify? The same Schiff who wouldn’t allow for balanced testimonies in the hearing? The same Schiff that did all his depositions outside of public knowledge or record?

Yeah, brilliant dude. What’s amazing is how hypocritical the democrats have been about impeachment this time around versus the soundbites they offered up last time.
 
And just so you know, Trump keeps saying “read the transcript”. No transcript of the call has ever been released. They released a summary of the call that left out some important points of the discussion.
 
Duck_walk said:
And just so you know, Trump keeps saying “read the transcript”. No transcript of the call has ever been released. They released a summary of the call that left out some important points of the discussion.
Click to expand...
How do you know that?!? Hahaha.
Maybe they need to fly you into Washington. Apparently you have then secret scoop! Go ahead and deny objections that have been raised. No closure on your part though....total lack of self realization.

Is your evidence the same quality as current democrats? I heard from someone that heard someone that listened to Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow?
 
Duck said: Schiff is a brilliant presenter that laid out a case. This is all the MSM has said for 3 days. Who is blinded by ideology? Not following. Not at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: you_dont_know_me
Schiff is the prosecuter. Does your local DA testify in cases he is prosecuting? Come on.
 
you_dont_know_me said:
How do you know that?!? Hahaha.
Maybe they need to fly you into Washington. Apparently you have then secret scoop! Go ahead and deny objections that have been raised. No closure on your part though....total lack of self realization.

Is your evidence the same quality as current democrats? I heard from someone that heard someone that listened to Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow?
Click to expand...

If you had watched the trial, you would know that answer.
 
When you can’t argue the facts, you attack the process. This is nothing new on your part. You won’t address is it’s ok to withhold funds for personal political benefit. Fyi it isn’t.
 
you_dont_know_me said:
Source? A liberal twitter page? Are you talking about when Super Schiff used hyperbole but didn’t label it as such?
Click to expand...

It is called first hand testimony of those who were on the phone call. Post me a link of the “transcript”. You can’t do it. It doesn’t exist.
 
it is great how much wiser the American people are getting. They are starting to realize you can’t trust the news just because they say they are the news.

Media will never be the same.
 
Vindman was subpoenaed to testify before Congressional investigators on October 29, 2019, as part of the U.S. House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.[14][15] He is the first White House official to testify who was actually on a July 25, 2019, telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, who is campaigning for President. Based on his opening statement, obtained in advance by The New York Times, Vindman's testimony corroborates previous testimony from Fiona Hill, his former manager, and William B. Taylor Jr., acting Ambassador to Ukraine.[16]
 
When you are ready to discuss why it is ok to spend millions in tax dollars at Trump properties, let me know. When you are ready to let me know how it’s good to withhold government assistance from an Allie until you receive personal benefit, get back with me. I would even love to hear why there are more boots on the ground in Iraq than there were on Obama’s last day. Or give me details of Trump’s healthcare plan, other can cutting Medicare. Otherwise I am not reading your drivel.
 
Duck_walk said:
When you are ready to discuss why it is ok to spend millions in tax dollars at Trump properties, let me know. When you are ready to let me know how it’s good to withhold government assistance from an Allie until you receive personal benefit, get back with me. I would even love to hear why there are more boots on the ground in Iraq than there were on Obama’s last day. Or give me details of Trump’s healthcare plan, other can cutting Medicare. Otherwise I am not reading your drivel.
Click to expand...
Duck, get off Mosports this morning and watch the trial, instead of hearing sound bites off of MSNBC later tonight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Texascap
Duck_walk said:
When you are ready to discuss why it is ok to spend millions in tax dollars at Trump properties, let me know. When you are ready to let me know how it’s good to withhold government assistance from an Allie until you receive personal benefit, get back with me. I would even love to hear why there are more boots on the ground in Iraq than there were on Obama’s last day. Or give me details of Trump’s healthcare plan, other can cutting Medicare. Otherwise I am not reading your drivel.
Click to expand...

Moves goalposts, picks up his ball, and goes home. Or to twitter to find the next awesome quip to start the next thread.

Who should we vote for this time around? Who is your candidate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Texascap
Duck_walk said:
When you are ready to discuss why it is ok to spend millions in tax dollars at Trump properties, let me know. When you are ready to let me know how it’s good to withhold government assistance from an Allie until you receive personal benefit, get back with me. I would even love to hear why there are more boots on the ground in Iraq than there were on Obama’s last day. Or give me details of Trump’s healthcare plan, other can cutting Medicare. Otherwise I am not reading your drivel.
Click to expand...
Also 2 things:

1) Link to where they have spent millions at Trump properties would be helpful. I find it hard to believe that Trump has to pay for anything when he goes to stay at one of his properties. Sure, the flight obviously costs. But every politician in the world has their flights paid for from tax payer dollars.

2) He didn't say to do "him" a favor. He clearly said "us" and "country." And that was an "important point" that they did release in the call. Cmon Duck, you're better than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Texascap
Stop n Go said:
Also 2 things:

1) Link to where they have spent millions at Trump properties would be helpful. I find it hard to believe that Trump has to pay for anything when he goes to stay at one of his properties. Sure, the flight obviously costs. But every politician in the world has their flights paid for from tax payer dollars.

2) He didn't say to do "him" a favor. He clearly said "us" and "country." And that was an "important point" that they did release in the call. Cmon Duck, you're better than this.
Click to expand...

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-spen...y-visiting-business-properties-report-1455319

https://www.propublica.org/article/political-and-taxpayer-spending-at-trump-properties-16-1-million

[URL]https://rubengallego.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/how-much-money-has-gone-directly-treasury-trump-family-bank-accounts[/URL]
 
you_dont_know_me said:
Moves goalposts, picks up his ball, and goes home. Or to twitter to find the next awesome quip to start the next thread.

Who should we vote for this time around? Who is your candidate?
Click to expand...
you_dont_know_me said:
Moves goalposts, picks up his ball, and goes home. Or to twitter to find the next awesome quip to start the next thread.

Who should we vote for this time around? Who is your candidate?
Click to expand...
Stop n Go said:
Duck, get off Mosports this morning and watch the trial, instead of hearing sound bites off of MSNBC later tonight.
Click to expand...


epistemic closure
 
Stop n Go said:
Also 2 things:

1) Link to where they have spent millions at Trump properties would be helpful. I find it hard to believe that Trump has to pay for anything when he goes to stay at one of his properties. Sure, the flight obviously costs. But every politician in the world has their flights paid for from tax payer dollars.

2) He didn't say to do "him" a favor. He clearly said "us" and "country." And that was an "important point" that they did release in the call. Cmon Duck, you're better than this.
Click to expand...
Duck_walk said:
epistemic closure
Click to expand...
pot meet kettle
 
  • Like
Reactions: Texascap
I read the articles if you can believe it. I don't like that presidents get to spend 40 days a year on vacation...or more.

I don't like the optics of spending time at his own places of business... because I'm intellectually honest and willing to admit that.

Nothing in this impeachment trial is worthy of removal of office or impeachment. Nothing.

Tell me the Bidens are innocent...please tell me they are and why they are...because the same reason you would use on them is the same we use on trump.

You won't cede any ground, won't admit wrong thinking or changing your mind...you won't. Because you belong to the cult of Democrats.

Who should we vote for? Who is the best option? What works best for you?
 
Duck_walk said:
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-spen...y-visiting-business-properties-report-1455319

https://www.propublica.org/article/political-and-taxpayer-spending-at-trump-properties-16-1-million
https://www.propublica.org/article/political-and-taxpayer-spending-at-trump-properties-16-1-million
https://rubengallego.house.gov/medi...-directly-treasury-trump-family-bank-accounts
Click to expand...
Fair. He does spend too much money. I agree with that, was honestly just looking for articles on it so I could learn more about it.

But what does that have to do with impeachment? You want to impeach the guy because he spends tax payer dollars at his properties?

No other president had properties to go to on their vacations. If they did, they would've stayed there instead of the Motel 6 down the street.
 
Duck_walk said:
And just so you know, Trump keeps saying “read the transcript”. No transcript of the call has ever been released. They released a summary of the call that left out some important points of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Your article is from the New York Times. This is a former newspaper overrun by leftwing radical opinions that print pure nonsense. The level of subpar intellect and scholarship is dangerously close to Marxism. Seriously, this newspaper needs to be debunked one article at time on national TV.
 
you_dont_know_me said:
I like how no one has validated current impeachment at all. And veer came in to snipe after ducky hit a wall.
Click to expand...

what in the hell are you even talking about?
This entire thing could have been cleared up in a matter of hours if Mulvaney or Bolton had just come forward and testified weeks ago.
Why didn’t they do that?
 
Stop n Go said:
Fair. He does spend too much money. I agree with that, was honestly just looking for articles on it so I could learn more about it.

But what does that have to do with impeachment? You want to impeach the guy because he spends tax payer dollars at his properties?

No other president had properties to go to on their vacations. If they did, they would've stayed there instead of the Motel 6 down the street.
Click to expand...

It is in the constitution. It’s called the emoluments clause. He has accepted monies at his properties from foreign governments. That is an impeachable offense. But the ball less democrats let it go. He should have been impeached two years ago.
 
Illhan Omar, you know.. the felon. She loves emoluments. Jews not so much. Her religion won't allow it.
I'm reading a book that makes the case, that defeated Nazi Germans adopted the Islamic faith. It's a powerful argument. It's written by a Swede.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back