There are 188 comments.

1. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   7:22 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 12, 2023

2. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   8:42 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 13, 2023

   Painter Jean (View Comment):

   MarciN (View Comment):

   cdor (View Comment):
   Gosh, is it the Never Trumpers who are actually the cultists? I wonder…

   This recently crossed my mind too.

   I’m upset with Mitt Romney these days, but when I was a staunch supporter, I saw people accuse him of all kinds of things he didn’t do. The list is endless, but the most frustrating was that he left the state of Massachusetts in a financial mess. It was sheer Romney derangement syndrome stuff. I live here, and he performed miracles with our state’s economy. It seemed to me that people who didn’t like him were willing to believe any bad thing anyone said about him, even when normally those sources would have no credibility to the same people.

   One of the difficulties is that the term “NeverTrumper” gets thrown at anyone who finds fault with Trump. Are there actual NeverTrumpers? Yes, absolutely. But I’ve been called a NeverTrumper even though I voted for him, had his sign in my yard, and have been quite willing to give him credit for his policy achievements. But no, criticize Trump at all and suddenly you’re a NeverTrumper and – very, very common – you hate Trump!

   I don’t even like the term “never Trumper.” Why does he get to have the only disparaging term for people who do not vote for him?  Am I a “never Hillaryer?” A “never Obamer?

3. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   8:50 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 13, 2023

   kedavis (View Comment):

   But is Cooke one of those people who claim that any other 2016 Republican candidate would have beaten Hillary and done even better? That might be a kind of marginal definition of “Never Trump.”

   Hey, I believe that and I voted for Trump.  I don’t think that’s a very good definition.

4. Member
   Jim McConnell

   @JimMcConnell

   

   Post author

   10:33 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 13, 2023

   Painter Jean (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Painter Jean (View Comment):
   and the evidence comes from his own attorneys

   Watch the video above and you may well come away with a different view. As one who spent my life as a trial lawyer, and old enough to still be proud of that title and not ashamed of it, I was astounded as I read the indictment to see how many times the DO[in]J deliberately invaded the Attorney-Client Privilege, a privilege we were taught all our life was absolutely sacrosanct. Sadly, absolutely nothing is sacrosanct with these thugs.

   My understanding was that by getting his lawyers to lie on his behalf, that broke the usual attorney-client privilege. Is that correct or no? I don’t know.

   It’s my understanding that if his lawyers did lie for him that made them co-conspirators, and the attorney-client privilege no longer applies. (I’m not a lawyer, but I did once stay at a Holiday Inn.)

5. Member
   Jim McConnell

   @JimMcConnell

   

   Post author

   10:38 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 13, 2023

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):
   your approach to dialogue, which is fundamentally different from mine.

   I agree with every word of #1 but simply do not understand the above comment as I have endeavored mightily to be respectful and civil in all I have said here. I am genuinely saddened that you do not see it that way. Respectfully, Jim

   Don’t hear what I’m not saying.

   I said that “your approach to dialogue is fundamentally different from mine.”

   I didn’t say that it’s uncivil.

   What then is this difference?

   I meant that in one approach, dialogue is literal. Every question and every statement means what it says, and does not mean anything that it does not say. It makes no difference who asks or asserts it or what his motives are.

   The other approach is not literal. The reader takes into account what he assumes to be the motives of the speaker, and intuits what the speaker is really trying to accomplish, not what the sentence means independent of who wrote it. If asked a simple yes/no question, he never answers “yes” or “no”. In his mind, that would be falling into a trap laid by the other person, with the motive of gaining a personal advantage.

   I was taught the former approach. In this approach, there are no personalities involved, any more than there would be in an debate over the Pythagorean Theorem. A debate is just a logical sequence of questions. If you wish to respond to a question that I ask, simply assume that I was looking for an answer to that literal question.

   Thank you. I will consider your comments and may/may not respond. However, it would appear we are, indeed, operating from such different planes of approach they may well be irreconcilable. If that is my final conclusion I will simply not engage further. Thank you again for continuing this conversation in such a thoughtful manner. It is much appreciated.

   I couldn’t realistically ask for a better answer! I think that for each of us, to simply not engage further in a doomed attempt at conversation would be the best reasonable course. Some day something better, we hope.

   I would just comment that Jim George and Mark Camp have conducted themselves in a remarkably civil manner in their disagreement.

   Would that we all could do it that way.

6. Member
   Annefy

   @Annefy

   12:49 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 14, 2023

   Jim McConnell (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):
   your approach to dialogue, which is fundamentally different from mine.

   I agree with every word of #1 but simply do not understand the above comment as I have endeavored mightily to be respectful and civil in all I have said here. I am genuinely saddened that you do not see it that way. Respectfully, Jim

   Don’t hear what I’m not saying.

   I said that “your approach to dialogue is fundamentally different from mine.”

   I didn’t say that it’s uncivil.

   What then is this difference?

   I meant that in one approach, dialogue is literal. Every question and every statement means what it says, and does not mean anything that it does not say. It makes no difference who asks or asserts it or what his motives are.

   The other approach is not literal. The reader takes into account what he assumes to be the motives of the speaker, and intuits what the speaker is really trying to accomplish, not what the sentence means independent of who wrote it. If asked a simple yes/no question, he never answers “yes” or “no”. In his mind, that would be falling into a trap laid by the other person, with the motive of gaining a personal advantage.

   I was taught the former approach. In this approach, there are no personalities involved, any more than there would be in an debate over the Pythagorean Theorem. A debate is just a logical sequence of questions. If you wish to respond to a question that I ask, simply assume that I was looking for an answer to that literal question.

   Thank you. I will consider your comments and may/may not respond. However, it would appear we are, indeed, operating from such different planes of approach they may well be irreconcilable. If that is my final conclusion I will simply not engage further. Thank you again for continuing this conversation in such a thoughtful manner. It is much appreciated.

   I couldn’t realistically ask for a better answer! I think that for each of us, to simply not engage further in a doomed attempt at conversation would be the best reasonable course. Some day something better, we hope.

   I would just comment that Jim George and Mark Camp have conducted themselves in a remarkably civil manner in their disagreement.

   Would that we all could do it that way.

   Yes. Lovely that. 

   wait. What? Has anything been resolved ? No?

   Please 

    

7. Member
   Jim George

   @JimGeorge

   9:23 AM EDT ⋅ Jun 14, 2023

   Annefy (View Comment):

   Jim McConnell (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):
   your approach to dialogue, which is fundamentally different from mine.

   I agree with every word of #1 but simply do not understand the above comment as I have endeavored mightily to be respectful and civil in all I have said here. I am genuinely saddened that you do not see it that way. Respectfully, Jim

   Don’t hear what I’m not saying.

   I said that “your approach to dialogue is fundamentally different from mine.”

   I didn’t say that it’s uncivil.

   What then is this difference?

   I meant that in one approach, dialogue is literal. Every question and every statement means what it says, and does not mean anything that it does not say. It makes no difference who asks or asserts it or what his motives are.

   The other approach is not literal. The reader takes into account what he assumes to be the motives of the speaker, and intuits what the speaker is really trying to accomplish, not what the sentence means independent of who wrote it. If asked a simple yes/no question, he never answers “yes” or “no”. In his mind, that would be falling into a trap laid by the other person, with the motive of gaining a personal advantage.

   I was taught the former approach. In this approach, there are no personalities involved, any more than there would be in an debate over the Pythagorean Theorem. A debate is just a logical sequence of questions. If you wish to respond to a question that I ask, simply assume that I was looking for an answer to that literal question.

   Thank you. I will consider your comments and may/may not respond. However, it would appear we are, indeed, operating from such different planes of approach they may well be irreconcilable. If that is my final conclusion I will simply not engage further. Thank you again for continuing this conversation in such a thoughtful manner. It is much appreciated.

   I couldn’t realistically ask for a better answer! I think that for each of us, to simply not engage further in a doomed attempt at conversation would be the best reasonable course. Some day something better, we hope.

   I would just comment that Jim George and Mark Camp have conducted themselves in a remarkably civil manner in their disagreement.

   Would that we all could do it that way.

   Yes. Lovely that.

   wait. What? Has anything been resolved ? No?

   Please

    

   No. That’s the point.

8. Moderator
   Painter Jean

   @PainterJean

   6:34 PM EDT ⋅ Jun 14, 2023

   Annefy (View Comment):

   Jim McConnell (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):

   Jim George (View Comment):

   Mark Camp (View Comment):
   your approach to dialogue, which is fundamentally different from mine.

   I agree with every word of #1 but simply do not understand the above comment as I have endeavored mightily to be respectful and civil in all I have said here. I am genuinely saddened that you do not see it that way. Respectfully, Jim

   Don’t hear what I’m not saying.

   I said that “your approach to dialogue is fundamentally different from mine.”

   I didn’t say that it’s uncivil.

   What then is this difference?

   I meant that in one approach, dialogue is literal. Every question and every statement means what it says, and does not mean anything that it does not say. It makes no difference who asks or asserts it or what his motives are.

   The other approach is not literal. The reader takes into account what he assumes to be the motives of the speaker, and intuits what the speaker is really trying to accomplish, not what the sentence means independent of who wrote it. If asked a simple yes/no question, he never answers “yes” or “no”. In his mind, that would be falling into a trap laid by the other person, with the motive of gaining a personal advantage.

   I was taught the former approach. In this approach, there are no personalities involved, any more than there would be in an debate over the Pythagorean Theorem. A debate is just a logical sequence of questions. If you wish to respond to a question that I ask, simply assume that I was looking for an answer to that literal question.

   Thank you. I will consider your comments and may/may not respond. However, it would appear we are, indeed, operating from such different planes of approach they may well be irreconcilable. If that is my final conclusion I will simply not engage further. Thank you again for continuing this conversation in such a thoughtful manner. It is much appreciated.

   I couldn’t realistically ask for a better answer! I think that for each of us, to simply not engage further in a doomed attempt at conversation would be the best reasonable course. Some day something better, we hope.

   I would just comment that Jim George and Mark Camp have conducted themselves in a remarkably civil manner in their disagreement.

   Would that we all could do it that way.

   Yes. Lovely that.

   wait. What? Has anything been resolved ? No?

   Please

    

   What’s being commended is their civility even though they’re disagreeing. Whether or not there’s some kind of “resolution” is beside the point.