The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper

Practices Christian Living
#3465

Let’s say that’s correct. You know that Sondland is a wealthy Trump donor, chosen, employed, and praised by Trump, and appointed by him to take a lead role in carrying out Trump’s policy in Ukraine (so in with Trump that unlike most, he could call him anytime on his cell phone) .

Yet you know that for his third sworn testimony, Sondland’s carefully written statement plainly asserted a Trump sanctioned “quid pro quo” was not only incontrovertible (explaining how he knew that and confirmed it at every turn), but that Everyone involved in that effort knew that this was the Trump policy that they were working with, and should come to testify about that knowledge.

Further, you know that GOP’s Jim Jordan and Rep. Turner shouted their disgust at Sondland for insisting on that and urged him to correct it, and Sondland steadfastly held to his statement that Trump’s quid pro quo of trading aid and support for getting the investigation into Biden was undeniable, and was the challenge every one of Trump’s employees in Ukraine dealt with.

So my question to you is, How do you account for this lauded ally of the president (and all the others who testified under threat of perjury) being so insistent that your own more generous view of what Trump did is deeply false? Did Trump select yet another part of the deep state, or what**?**

#3466

Well, do you really believe this? That would put your friend (and maybe most of us) in a place where we really can’t figure sh!t out. With the internet and relative cognitive abilities of a substantial number of our population, we have to either say they are dumb downed by the media or are savvy enough to look and figure it out for themselves.

It really is simple.:wink:

#3467

Yes, I do. This is an information war. If the numbers we believe to be true, are not, then faulty analysis will result. People are split on what they genuinely believe to be a legit news source. If you don’t trust MSNBC, or Fox News, etc… You won’t believe what they report.

1 Like
#3468

Well, I would have expected this.

I guess I should throw this story in, for “good measure”. :crazy_face:

What’s happening today, in the impeachment inquiry soap opera? :crazy_face:

#3469

"But then the cagey Sondland tacked back by reciting his phonecall question to the president, in which he asked the existential question of what Trump wanted from Ukraine — with Trump answering “Nothing!” Checkmate?

All day long, the grinning Sondland played Roadrunner to Adam Schiff’s Wiley E. Coyote, as he slowed and pulled up to offer up Trump — only to scoot away in a puff of dust as soon as Schiff tried to wrap his hands around him." - National Review

My wife watched the hearings yesterday, and totally agrees with that.

#3470

I get the need to smear Trump’s choice for leading his effort in Ukraine, and argue that he is mistaken. Like others under oath, he testified that Trump undeniably froze vital support for Ukraine, and required the “quid pro quo” of a political investigation, specifying “Rudy” as his rep who “knows” what’s required, who in turn insisted Trump requires investigating Biden (& all cite telling frantic efforts to satisfy Trump on this to Pompeo, Pence & Mulvaney, none of whom questioned that this quid pro quo was required).

Dear Dave, maybe this successful businessman and Trump donor is just another ‘deep state’ Trump choice. But watching his testimony, if you still doubt his reasons for insisting Trump’s quid pro quo is as plain as 2+2=4, CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU KNOW THAT HE IS SO MISTAKEN??.

Your view implies Trump’s ability to communicate his policy to all his key players is awful. But I find him very competent in pursuing what he seeks, and that all these who serve him, and had a first hand open channel with Trump & Giuliani are in a better position to know what he actually pursued than you or I.

#3471

Not exactly. You may read my statement as absolute. I don’t think there is much that is absolute. My only real point is, unless you have first hand accounts of the events, all of your analysis is potentially faulty. You are placing your trust in hearsay, if you do not have first hand accounts.

Even crazier, is that even first hand accounts are not infallible either. Take magicians, for example: They can manipulate your perception, so even what you think you see may not reflect the reality of the situation.

But, of course, we have to find a way to practically deal with this issue and the way each person does this is individual. The more experience you have of getting fooled, the more cautious you will be of it in the future. If you don’t believe you have ever been fooled, you are more likely to be fooled.

I suppose another main point of mine is that people are not stupid, they are using their perceptions of reality which may be flawed.

Each person tends to think they are the most logical person in the world. Yet, we have all sorts of disagreements among even the most intelligent. Is this because they are not intelligent? Not at all. It is that information we count on as true, which may or may not be, formulates the basis of our logic and reasoning.

1 Like
#3472

And that’s why it is incumbent on us to do our own FACT checking, not opinion checking. The truth is out there, but it is not found by finding the first thing that agrees with what we hope is true.
There is truth, independent of our wishes, our cultural filters, our suspicions, our hopes. I’m not into the postmodern crap about ‘no truth’, about ‘no foundations for metanarrative’ et. cet. ad nauseum. The Heideggerian emphasis on critique was in the end a corrosive movement. IMO.

1 Like
#3473

Amen Dave, you’d criticized my likes for being too quick; hope you can forgive my hasty “like” on yours :slight_smile:

#3474

2 takeaways from Sondland:

  • he ‘forgot’ to add at the beginning of his testimony that the Prez told him directly that there was no quid pro quo, that he was not asking for A?NYTHING in return for anything. When Sonland was asked why he did not include that fact in his openinbg, he said he ‘ran out of space’. Uh-huh - the reason for his flip-flopping is this:

The Left is intimidating this witness. Any outrage here or is it ok since it’s against Trump?

#3475

Dave, the right appears reduced to counting on accusations that Trump’s chosen Ambassador Sondland (and virtually everyone else with the courage to appear under threat of perjury!) are just cowards & liars. But all these hit pieces from the right do nothing to answer what I’ve asked about the unanimous evidence and reasons presented for the certainty that Trump did pursue a ‘quid pro quo.’

I repeat that many GOP senators (and Mulvaney explicitly) believe that pursuing such a political quid pro quo about corrupt behavior is not even what the founders meant by high crimes, and should not be impeached or overturn an election. Steve has articulately defended Trump with a similar argument.

Thus I think the far right would do better to stop smearing those on Trump’s team that valiantly sought to carry out his wishes, and to stop contesting the truth about the obvious events that went down, and free up conservative senators who need to justify their vote to a watching America, to present the actual reasons that they think impeaching Trump would be outrageous.

#3476

Exactly, what a joke!! The self righteous Schiff says “we take witness intimidation very seriously” and AGAIN the “left” does exactly what it accuses others of doing by actually intimidating Sondland by boycotting his hotels.
Schiff is disgusting beyond words , he is an ultimate pig and chronic liar who can’t distinguish truth from lies.

#3477

I wonder what the BBC, has to say today?

#3478

Opps. The BBC overlooked the following. An honest unbiased overlook, we can be sure!

U.S. Rep Jim Jordan, R-Ohio: You said to the president of the United States, “What do you want from Ukraine?” The president: “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on.”

Why didn’t you put that statement in your opening statement? I think you said you couldn’t fit it in. Is that right? Instead, we might be here for 46 minutes instead of 45 minutes?

Sondland: It wasn’t – it wasn’t purposeful, trust me.

Jordan: It wasn’t purposeful?

Sondland: No.

Jordan: Couldn’t fit it in a 23-page opener?

It’s a fair question, actually. So why wasn’t that fact – and it’s not a small point, by the way. It’s the point on which the entire impeachment hangs. Why wasn’t that point included in Sondland’s opening statement? Well, we don’t know, really, but here’s one possible explanation.

The statement was likely drafted by Sondland’s legal team. All four of his attorneys – it turns out, because we checked – are Democratic donors. The man seated next to Gordon Sondland today during the hearing, that would be a man called Robert Luskin. He has given over $130,000 to the Democrats over the years. Luskin also represented the FBI informant, Stefan Halper during the Russia hoax not too long ago.
Protesters have swarmed Gordon Sondland and his family in public. Democratic politicians have endorsed boycotts – pushed boycotts – of his businesses, his livelihood. In other words, the left has been working the refs. And that shouldn’t surprise you because, for the left, this is total war.

And yet, in this one case, it didn’t quite work. By the close of business today, we were back right where we were when the Ukraine circus started. In fact, we’re back where we were on November 9, 2016.
Yes, a lot of people in Washington despise Donald Trump. But still, to this moment, nobody can prove a crime. Don’t tell the press, though. They’re celebrating as if someone did."

Tucker is one person I’ve learned to trut. I still check out his opinions, of course, but the vast majority of what he reports turn out to be sccurate. Don’t ask me about his UFO-logy though lol.

#3479

For the most part, I don’t think many people believe that. I think that is largely a caricature of people who question certain opinions that are presumed to be truth/fact. But even if there is absolute truth, one still has to find it! Yet when many who claim to have it, differ among each other, surely they can’t all be right? They can all be wrong, however… Which I feel is most likely the case. Easier to be wrong than right if there is only one correct answer and trillions of wrong ones.

1 Like
#3480

And remember this! :crazy_face:

image
image720×360 116 KB

#3481

I have to say that you Americans love to argue about what appears to this admittedly unsophisticated Scotsman fairly reasonable requests by your President. Nobody seems to be interested in investigating Joe Biden despite the statements he made and the actions he took.

Why not?

#3482

I just came from the eschatological thread where those who differ were called demonic blasphemous heretical liars. Now it seems we’ve entered a political era where the same ad hominem technique also regularly substitutes for engaging any of the actual arguments or datum presented in the politics thread.

I called it bizarre and not conducive to any serious engagement that EU’s get so impassioned about other differing views. On current events, I just find this focus on outrage and disparaging personalities disappointingly boring. But shucks, I can overdose on outrage with just 5 minutes of CNN.

1 Like
#3483

You appear to have confidence in citing a host of Fox and Breitbart sources and shows.
I’ve learned to trut myself, and all others must pay cash, and especially if they are partisan shows or sources on the right or left.

#3484

Bob to just be honest I didn’t call Schiff a pig and chronic liar expecting a discussion about it, i simply can’t stand him and didn’t want to be subtle about it.
In fact I apologize to pigs for lumping them with Schiff.