Rand puts a nail in the coffin on second impeachment attempt.

[Invisible Man]

I come back to the accusation that was made against me a couple of times that my initial question in this thread was gaslighting. And I'd like to invite readers to think about the discussion that's gone on in this thread with respect to gaslighting.

Here's how wikipedia defines gaslighting:

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 judgment. 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Throughout this entire thread, I've done nothing other than ask honest questions and raise points that I believe to be legitimate. I have taken points raised against what I said seriously, engaged with them, and when I agreed with them conceded the point. I have consistently spoken to everyone in a respectful manner. I have never belittled the people arguing against me or treated their position like it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

The same can't be said about some of the people arguing against me. They've used profanities against me. They've given me neg reps. They've impugned my reading abilities. They've called me and my arguments idiotic. They've asserted that my arguments have never before been taken seriously because they don't deserve to be because they're so stupid. They have acted like the reason they can't point to anything in the Constitution to support their position is because nobody would have ever even had the possibility of impeaching a former office holder enter their minds, as if the very use of the word "impeach" ruled that out.

But it turns out, as anybody who takes a little time to look into it can see, that there is precedent for impeaching and/or subsequently trying former office holders, that discussion about doing so, and whether or not the Constitution allows it, has gone on throughout the nation's history, the very points I've raised have factored into these discussions, and, in fact, far from being some marginal idiotic view that nobody discusses because they never took it seriously, the position that impeaching and subsequently trying former office holders is allowed by the Constitution is, as far as I can tell, the majority view among constitutional scholars who have addressed the question. If I didn't have enough confidence in my own reasoning abilities, I would have easily been effectively silenced by all the people telling me that the things I was saying were too stupid to warrant a response, before even taking the time to look into it.

So who here has engaged in gaslighting?

Unfortunately, I fear that those who have engaged in it are now so committed to the position that they've portrayed as the only one that's conceivable, that it will be difficult for them to give the other side a fair shake, no matter what points may be in its favor.

 

[Mordan]

Good on Rand.

He is showing some teeth.

 

[DamianTV]

My question isn't like that.

Notice how you keep doing this with my posts.

I am not the only one who has observed your loaded questions. Yesterday you were called out repeatedly by multiple members. The questions you want to ask should be done in a mirror, because you are gonna have a very hard time deceiving any of us here. So really, I think you are only lying to yourself if you want to believe the crap you are trying to make us believe.

 

[Invisible Man]

I am not the only one who has observed your loaded questions. Yesterday you were called out repeatedly by multiple members. The questions you want to ask should be done in a mirror, because you are gonna have a very hard time deceiving any of us here. So really, I think you are only lying to yourself if you want to believe the crap you are trying to make us believe.

What crap do you think I'm trying to make you believe?

And why not just take my questions literally, rather than looking for a hidden agenda behind them that nobody can find in my actual words?

Just because other posters have done the same thing to me that you have doesn't make it right.

Take this thread for example. If you read how the discussion ended up ensuing since the question I asked that you called gaslighting, it should be pretty clear by now that it wasn't that at all. And in fact, I was the one getting gaslighted (gaslit?).

 

[Gaius Marius]

I see that the debate that went on about impeaching Nixon after he had resigned is discussed in the article I mentioned above on p. 62, which I quote here:


Notice that the section I bolded makes the exact same point I just did.

I believe Nixon was impeached. However, he was not tried by the US Senate since he resigned before any such trial could be conducted. In fact, Nixon resigned because Senator Barry Goldwater told Nixon that only nine senators would vote against conviction.

To be clear, only the House of Representatives has impeachment power. However, once there has been an impeachment, then the Senate conducts a trial of the impeached person. Think of of impeachment as an indictment. Accordingly, the House of Representatives indicts (impeaches) while the Senate convicts.

 

[Invisible Man]

I believe Nixon was impeached.

Impeachment proceedings had begun, but he resigned before getting impeached, and they did not end up impeaching him.

To the point I was getting at though, that wasn't because the Constitution wouldn't have allowed it. It was decided out of practical/political considerations.

To be clear, only the House of Representatives has impeachment power. However, once there has been an impeachment, then the Senate conducts a trial of the impeached person. Think of of impeachment as an indictment. Accordingly, the House of Representatives indicts (impeaches) while the Senate convicts.

That is correct, and helpful. People often get confused on that point.

With Nixon, it's not just that the Senate did not convict him, it's that the House didn't impeach him (although it would have, had he not resigned). Only 3 presidents have been impeached, and Nixon isn't one of them. None have been convicted by the Senate.

 

[Gaius Marius]

Impeachment proceedings had begun, but he resigned before getting impeached, and they did not end up impeaching him.

To the point I was getting at though, that wasn't because the Constitution wouldn't have allowed it. It was decided out of practical/political considerations.



That is correct, and helpful. People often get confused on that point.

With Nixon, it's not just that the Senate did not convict him, it's that the House didn't impeach him (although it would have, had he not resigned). Only 3 presidents have been impeached, and Nixon isn't one of them. None have been convicted by the Senate.

Okay, I thought the House of Representatives did in fact impeach Nixon. I am only going by my memory of an awkward debate long ago between my HS US Gov't teacher versus my HS History teacher in front of the entire school, but maybe I misunderstood what they stated.

 

[DamianTV]

What crap do you think I'm trying to make you believe?

And why not just take my questions literally, rather than looking for a hidden agenda behind them that nobody can find in my actual words?

Just because other posters have done the same thing to me that you have doesn't make it right.

Take this thread for example. If you read how the discussion ended up ensuing since the question I asked that you called gaslighting, it should be pretty clear by now that it wasn't that at all. And in fact, I was the one getting gaslighted (gaslit?).

Trump Lost. The Election was honest. Your Headline yesterday was Objective Fact and Truth. Not sure what else. MSM doesnt radicalize. News Articles are NEVER misleading. Vaccines are all perfectly safe. What other falsehoods do you believe? Dont bother playing the Victim card, your words ARE divisive.

 

[Invisible Man]

Trump Lost. The Election was honest. Your Headline yesterday was Objective Fact and Truth. Not sure what else. MSM doesnt radicalize. News Articles are NEVER misleading. Vaccines are all perfectly safe. What other falsehoods do you believe? Dont bother playing the Victim card, your words ARE divisive.

My thread title yesterday was an objective factual statement about what the statement I presented in the OP that was made by American Thinker said. That's all that the thread title was. As such, yes, it was an objective fact that anybody who read that statement could see. I made no claims in the thread title or elsewhere in the thread about whether I agreed with that statement.

The rest of what you're claiming can't be gotten from anything I've ever said. You're just reading into my words and flat out making things up. If you can find quotes where you think I've said those things or even implied any of them, please show me.

For some reason you've made assumptions about me. You think you know what my beliefs are and that I have some agenda that you've dreamed up. But you can't find any post I've ever made that fits your assumption.

Again, what's so objectionable about simply taking what I actually say at face value? When you do that, you might find it's not as bad as you think.

 

[RJB]

This is hilarious! LOL. The word game master is asking for charity. You get in fights with 90% of the forum over stupid uncharitable readings. The only people you don't fight with are obvious trolls like Sola_Fide, Zippy, etc.

A Jewish friend explained an example of Chutzpuh is a person who murders his parents and then throws himself at the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. This is a new example.

My goodness. I am going to be laughing about this for the next few days. Thanks!

My question could have been read more charitably than that.

Again, you're being uncharitable to me.

 

[Invisible Man]

You get in fights with 90% of the forum over stupid uncharitable readings.

As far as I know, I have never done that. If I ever do and it's pointed out to me, I'll try to correct it.

And even when I disagree with others (which is part of what discussions like we have at forums like this are for), it's never a fight. At least not from my end.

I plead guilty to coming to the defense of Sola Fide and Zippy though. I always liked both of them and thought they were unfairly treated. I don't consider them trolls.

 

[DamianTV]

My thread title yesterday was an objective factual statement about what the statement I presented in the OP that was made by American Thinker said. That's all that the thread title was. As such, yes, it was an objective fact that anybody who read that statement could see. I made no claims in the thread title or elsewhere in the thread about whether I agreed with that statement.

The rest of what you're claiming can't be gotten from anything I've ever said. You're just reading into my words and flat out making things up. If you can find quotes where you think I've said those things or even implied any of them, please show me.

For some reason you've made assumptions about me. You think you know what my beliefs are and that I have some agenda that you've dreamed up. But you can't find any post I've ever made that fits your assumption.

Again, what's so objectionable about simply taking what I actually say at face value? When you do that, you might find it's not as bad as you think.

If you are really dumb enough to believe the headline without thinking "This might be a lie" or "This person / group might have been coerced", then you really need to learn HOW to think. Dont accept. Dont reject. Entertain possibilities. Instead, you insist that the headline was truth because that is what you want to believe.

Here is the thing. We can smell you setting us up. Next thing you do is to accuse others of being Terrorists because they dont think like you or dont think what you told them to think. You'll make things our fault. You'll play the victim. Thats what the MSM Propaganda Machine is for. You can believe what ever crap you want to believe, but insisting on Subjective Statements are Truth and Evidence and that we all think like you do is only a symptom of what I suspect to be Heavy Brainwashing. Question your own beliefs. Are you able to do that?

 

[Invisible Man]

If you are really dumb enough to believe the headline without thinking "This might be a lie" or "This person / group might have been coerced", then you really need to learn HOW to think. Dont accept. Dont reject. Entertain possibilities.

Entertaining those possibilities is exactly what I did in the thread you're talking about.

Yes, it's true that the statement American Thinker made might have been a lie, as I always fully recognized throughout that discussion. But the thread title is not the place to say that. A thread title that simply presents what the statement was objectively is how a thread title should work. That's all my thread title did. The statement wasn't my statement, it was American Thinker's statement, and it said what it said (which was exactly what my thread title represented it as saying), whether truthful or not.

 

[RJB]

As far as I know, I have never done that. If I ever do and it's pointed out to me, I'll try to correct it.

And even when I disagree with others (which is part of what discussions like we have at forums like this are for), it's never a fight. At least not from my end.

I plead guilty to coming to the defense of Sola Fide and Zippy though. I always liked both of them and thought they were unfairly treated. I don't consider them trolls.

Oh my gosh! Stop! STOP! Please! You are killing me with laughter! Lol!

 

[Invisible Man]

Oh my gosh! Stop! STOP! Please! You are killing me with laughter! Lol!

Ask yourself honestly, is what you're doing right here not a good example of gaslighting?

 

[RJB]

Ask yourself honestly, is what you're doing right here not a good example of gaslighting?

It's a great example of a man intelligent enough not to feed a troll. All I can do is laugh. I encourage the rest of the forum to do the same. This is hilarious.

 

[Invisible Man]

It's a great example of a man intelligent enough not to feed a troll. All I can do is laugh. I encourage the rest of the forum to do the same. This is hilarious.

I encourage the rest of the forum to read this thread, and take note of the back and forth that you and other posters have had with me here, seeing just which side has said and done what, and come to their own conclusions about their respective levels of politeness.

By the way, usually a troll would be someone who comes to a site like this with an agenda that is contrary to that site's mission. But I have only ever supported this site's mission and the policies and candidates it supports. It's worth pointing out that Trump isn't one of those candidates. And it's funny how often Trump supporters have come here and accused long time Ron Paul supporters of being trolls on account of their failure to toe the Trumper line.

 

[RJB]

Yes. People should read the thread and ask themselves why multiple people of varying beliefs are equally tired of your bullshit. You have a history that goes beyond this current sock puppet.

I encourage the rest of the forum to read this thread, and take note of the back and forth that you and other posters have had with me here, seeing just which side has said and done what, and come to their own conclusions about their respective levels of politeness.

By the way, usually a troll would be someone who comes to a site like this with an agenda that is contrary to that site's mission. But I have only ever supported this site's mission and the policies and candidates it supports. It's worth pointing out that Trump isn't one of those candidates. And it's funny how often Trump supporters have come here and accused long time Ron Paul supporters of being trolls on account of their failure to toe the Trumper line.

 

[RJB]

I said my piece in this thread. "Charitable..." LOL!

Later.

 

[Invisible Man]

Yes. People should read the thread and ask themselves why multiple people of varying beliefs are equally tired of your bullshit. You have a history that goes beyond this current sock puppet.

It's not a sock puppet. It's a replacement account of one that I no longer use. And I've always been forthright about that. One of my first posts after I started posting with this account was a thread I made to announce my presence and that I used to post here with the handle Superfluous Man.

So you can't find examples of me doing whatever it is you are accusing me of in this thread, it sounds like. But you are certain that there are plenty of old ones in some other threads that I posted in with either this account or my old one. Although you don't know of any specifics.

I doubt that I'm guilty of what you say. But you're welcome to try to prove it. And if you don't see anything wrong with anything I've said in this particular thread that you can actually point to, that's telling in itself.

Speaking of history, I recall this kind of exchange with you from before as well. You would repeatedly accuse me of things, and then when I would ask you to provide the quote from me that would support your accusation, you never could.

My question to you is the same as it was to Damien. What's so wrong with just taking what I actually say at face value? When you do that, you might find that it's not as bad as you assume when you insist on reading things between the lines.

I don't call people names. I don't use all caps and huge bold in-your-face fonts. I don't use profanity. I don't belittle people. I don't make posts expressing laughter at them. I don't accuse people of having hidden agendas or believing things other than what they actually say. The same can't be said for how others often talk to me. You want me to believe that when they do that it means I'm the problem. But just consider the possibility that it's the opposite.

This thread is actually a good example of one where I put in a fair amount of time researching and presenting the fruit of that research here in posts that I believed would be helpful to those who are interested in dispassionately discussing and learning about the subject. Not everybody will want to look into it or discuss it, and not everybody has to. But some people may want to. It's hard for me to see what's wrong with even so much as trying to engage in that discussion with those who might like it. Not everybody is going to agree on everything, and that should be fine.