President Donald Trump

Press Secretary Sean Spicer

Synthisophy

Embracing technology is often a source of isolation, but it can also be much more. It can be an avenue for us to interact despite differences in viewpoints and geography. It’s the role which is filled by Synthisophy, which means “The integration of socially pertinent information derived from the study of history into the present culture.” This website offers space and encouragement to move forward culturally and intellectually in vigorous and respectful discussions on current societal issues.

It may sound oxymoronic to suggest we are together as a collective of individuals, but it’s how the Internet has assembled us in cyberspace. Thanks to the wide-ranging inroads various communication platforms have made in sharing ideas, with or without rancor, it would be remiss of us as a society not to debate the social, political, scientific, and historical issues which have brought us through the digital and the information age.

Building Debate on a Strong Foundation

Throwing around baseless accusations, claims, or “facts” is not the route to meaningful debate. The foundation for weighty statements can be traced to the scientific method. This method takes a hypothesis, and then through an experiment or data research, either proves or disproves it.

When using this method to back up statements, it’s a path toward civil discussion. It is hard to refute fact-based claims which are supported by evidence. Wild, blanket statements with no connection to reality are quickly exposed, and eventually, it is hoped, that proponents of these statements will veer toward more reasoned debate. Here at Synthisophy we encourage the spread of intelligent commentary in the forums on many topics at facebook/synthisophy.

It’s not all Black and White

To foster an understanding of the real world, it’s important to learn about points of view which don’t match your own. The world is not a place where ideas and concepts can all easily be categorized into one vein or another, black or white. There are shades of grey to just about anything you can imagine, and that’s where our common understanding must lie. I see your view, and you see mine, and we either meet in the middle or agree to disagree in a mature, reasonable fashion.

Bringing the Two Together

 A two-party system underlies our democracy, and it’s what we know. It has also fostered polarization in our society, where you’re either right or left, with precious few moderates to be found. Reasoned, intelligent debate based on sound principles is the key to understanding and the way to enlightenment and truth.

Browse the latest discussions below and engage in intelligent debate. Contact us to learn more about synthisophy, or read the 370 page book by chapter above. Share what you think here at synthisophy!

We’ve watched Pelosi, we’ve heard Schiff, we’ve listened to Nadler….. but we still don’t know why they’re rushing to impeach Trump.  Could followers please share their reasons why they think the House Dems are rushing to impeach Trump. We just don’t get it. Share your views at facebook/synthisophy! Thanks.

Here’s a summary of Chapter 12, Modern Crises. Modern Crises can instantly place us back into our evolutionary past.

What is fact and truth? Are there alternate truths? Does truth matter anymore? Share your views at facebook/synthisophy.com!

House Republican Report prebuttal to democratic impeachment hearings findings, 12/2/19:

Republican Report, 12/2/19
The President has a deep-seated, genuine, and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine due to its history of pervasive corruption.

David Holmes, Senior Ukranian Diplomat, 11/21/19,  Testimony:
Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not give “an expletive” about Ukraine. I asked why not? Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about big stuff. I noticed there was big stuff going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia. Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant big stuff that benefits the President. Like the Biden investigation that Mr. Guiliani was pushing.

Republican Report, 12/2/19:
The summary of their July 25, 2019, telephone conversation shows no quid pro quo or indication of conditionality, threats or pressure.

Trump in that phone call:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.... whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.

Republican Report:
The evidence does not establish that President Trump withheld a meeting with President Zelensky for the purpose of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma Holdings, Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or Ukraine influence in the 2016 election.

Gordon Sondland, UN Ambassador, 11/21/19, Testimony:
As I testified previously, Mr. Guiliani’s requests were quid pro quo for arranging a white house visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Guiliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the investigations of the 2016 election, the DNC server and Burisma (Biden). Mr. Guiliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States and we knew these investigations were important to the president.

Was there a quid pro quo? As I testified previously, with regard to the requested white house call and white house meeting, the answer is yes.

I called the President on September 9th, and asked him an open ended question: “What do you want from Ukraine?”  Trump responded: “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”

President Trump, 11.20.19, outside the White house, who said he did tell Sondland the following on September 9th: “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”

What do you think of the 2 articles of impeachment submitted by the House Judiciary Committee? Share your views at facebook/synthisophy!

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.

Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

(1) President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into —
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump — acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government — conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested
(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and
(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

These actions were consistent with President Trump’s previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

 

ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its “sole Power of Impeachment”. President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the “sole Power of Impeachment” vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees — in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees — in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. This abuse of office served to cover up the President’s own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment — and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

 

 

Add Text Here...

Add Text Here...

Center/Left syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd annually posts the op-ed of her brother, Kevin, who is a Trump supporter.  Here’s his commentary published about 2 weeks ago.  What’s your take on his views? Share them at facebook/synthisophy!

Over the last three years, my sister has frequently sent me reader emails demanding to know how I can still support Donald Trump. My short answer is always the same: Have you looked at the alternative?

The liberals still sneer at religious conservatives. I wouldn’t let them come with me to the Knights of Columbus bar. In August, the D.N.C. passed a resolution saying “religiously unaffiliated Americans” are the largest “religious group” in the party and “overwhelmingly” share Democrats’ values. And certain House chairmen are waiving the words “So help me God” from swearing-ins.

God help me.

I support the president for his economy, his jobless rate and the record numbers of the stock market that his deregulation fueled. I applaud his unconditional support of the police at a time when I worry we’re returning to a ’60s-style “police are pigs” mind-set. (Michael Bloomberg should stop apologizing for reducing violent crime in New York City.)

I feel safe in my bed with the way the president is handling Iran and North Korea. Most of all, I support him for saving the Supreme Court from Hillary Clinton.

Trump came from the roughest job training in the world: the New York construction trade. His manners are sometimes missing. He can be coarse and a bully. But I’ve been pleasantly surprised that he has done exactly what he promised despite a hostile press.

The impeachment inquiry is a farce. Ukraine didn’t do the investigation and the aid was released. I think that all aid is quid pro quo. The election is in a year. If Trump is as bad as Democrats say, let the voters impeach him. Adam Schiff has pursued the president with the obsessive zeal of Inspector Javert in “Les Misérables,” but his results have looked more like Inspector Clouseau’s.

His hearings produced a long line of career bureaucrats, disturbed and upset with Trump and brimming with second and thirdhand information. I grew up in Washington with these bureaucrats. It is good to remind them occasionally that the president makes policy and the agencies should carry it out without comment. The mainstream media and Democrats have tried to valorize the bureaucrats as patriots, but if these people were that conflicted, they should have quit.

The hearings ended with a thud and, according to a new Quinnipiac poll, public opinion has even slightly shifted in the president’s favor. There will not be one Republican vote to impeach.

Schiff now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of Elizabeth Taylor’s sixth or seventh husband, who, legend has it, cried, “I know what is expected of me on the wedding night, but how can I possibly make it more interesting?”

Hopefully, the coming I.G. report will be worse than we’ve been led to believe, causing night sweats for Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Clapper and “the lovers.”

The Democrats have never recovered from the 2016 election when they nominated the worst candidate in political history and lost to a political novice. Their horror at Trump conjures Lady Macbeth crying in agony, “Out, damned spot.”

All of the Democratic candidates support Medicaid coverage of abortion and nominating only judges who endorse abortion rights.

As for the best and the brightest the Dems have to offer:

Warren/Sanders: If you combine the support of the two billionaire-bashing socialists, they lead the field. You might consider vacationing in Venezuela before committing to them or they could run together as the End of Days ticket.

Biden/Bloomberg: Like Bloomberg, Biden has been forced to grovel and renounce all past career accomplishments on crime prevention.

Harris/Booker: They’re having trouble lighting the spark, even with some black voters.

Klobuchar/Buttigieg: They are the two least crazy people in the field, which means they have absolutely no chance.

The Martin O’Malley Award to Beto O’Rourke for thinking a vague resemblance to the Kennedys, an Annie Leibovitz Vanity Fair cover and a 214,000-vote loss to Ted Cruz could carry him to the nomination.

The mainstream media has reached a new low. It is not even pretending to be objective as it relentlessly batters the president daily (putting Trump just ahead of Harvey Weinstein and trailing only Satan). Reporters write opinion columns packed with innuendo and anonymous sources — not to mention what Anonymous is cooking up.

Newspapers that once had the most stringent editing rules on sources now appear to have no editors at all. The Washington Post reached a new journalistic low when it described the world’s No. 1 terrorist as an “austere religious scholar,” after our forces cornered him and he blew himself up.

Somewhere, Abe Rosenthal weeps.

The irony is that Trump drives news circulation. Without him, subscription rates would be cut in half.

Finally, one recent HuffPost piece turkey-shamed us all, suggesting that, for this beloved holiday, we consider curbing “the carbon footprint” of our turkeys and travel. These Democrats are a lot of fun.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

 

Add Text Here...

Add Text Here...

Add Text Here...

Add Text Here...

Add Text Here...