Hacker News Reader

Comment by harimau777 | Hacker News Reader

For example, during the impeachment hearings discussions generally went like this:

I presented officials who gave damning testimony before congress.

The person I was speaking to responded that person was biased or untrustworthy.

I pointed out that they were lifelong Republicans or respected experts and asked what sort of witness would change their mind.

The person I was speaking to responded that no witness could change their mind.

View on HN

To be fair, a lot of reasonable people would say "no witness could change my mind" if I asked them "what witness testimony would convince you that politicians are secretly Lizard People from the planet Venus?" So I don't think this is really about rejecting facts & reason... it's more about having really strong priors that the rest of us don't share.

Yeah, the mainstream Democrats in particular engaged in crap arguments like the dubious, hyper-partisan impeachment effort. Impeachment just distinctly wounded the anti-Trump efforts and only Trump's fumbling Covid was enough to get it back on track.

But the super mainstream Democrats are one of 3-4 distinct factions who want Trump out. Those actually even the mild left were only partially on this train.

So to cover what you're washing over here: The US President and his subordinates attempted to use the office of the President's powers to compel a foreign country to "discover" evidence against the President's domestic political opponents, under the auspices of denying military aid for the defense of that country from invasion by one of the US's global antagonists.

That's what you're covering under "hyper-partisan". You know, just so we're all clear on that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com