Meh, you’ve accused me of devaluing or even dismissing the Constitution dozens of times in these threads. At least I’ve offered a substantive reason why I think you may have been projecting that claim onto me the whole time 
What do you call it, the 3rd Person God view? Very authoritative, incredibly judgemental and dismissive, and full on dialog killer.
If it’s a “dialogue killer” for you, it’s because you chose not to be informed about the facts from the very beginning, despite originally insisting to me that you were going to watch. It seems your info terrain convinced you not to.
And that’s kind of the thing – the developmental analysis I offered to you was tracking responses among people who actually watched the hearing. Because you are consciously deciding to ignore the evidence — yes, 3rd-person objective evidence — you aren’t really in a position to criticize that analysis one way or the other. You simply are not qualified to comment on this analysis one way or the other, because you refused to perform the necessary injunction (look carefully at the evidence). You are like the Church insisting Galileo is wrong about the moons of Jupiter, while refusing to look through the telescope for themselves 
By the way, you know what a “conversation killer” is? Refusing to look at evidence (after clearly stating that you would), calling the hearings a “clown circus”, and trying to shut down my views. Sounds pretty authoritative, judgmental, and dismissive of you. Once again, you are accusing me of violating standards you yourself refuse to live up to. Same kind of “rules for thee, not for me!” game I was just describing in terms of the Constitution 
I’m not the only person that’s pointed this out. Just drop a 3 page Integral-splain and watch the dialog die. Perhaps that’s your intent.
You asked me for an “Integral-splain”, and then when I offered one, you accuse me of trying to use integral to kill the dialogue. Neat trick!
It comes across as an anti-discourse for you to want to roto-root those you don’t agree with (GOP, MAGA, Qanon, Trump,…),
It’s funny you say that, because I specifically mentioned white-hat Republicans that we should collectively be celebrating.
Since you worked in a lower case integral, I assume you’re not specifically referring to Integral Theory in the vein of Ken Wilber.
Huh? No, Ken has laid out these stages very clearly in his Integral Theory. And I made clear several times that my analysis was a product of my own view.
It is interesting that in 4 of 5 scenarios, the only actor(s) you mention are the GOP even while today the Democrats control of the Senate, House, Whitehouse and Administrative State.
I’m pretty sure I mentioned the DOJ in most of those.
They are well written to appeal to your chosen audience.
No, this was written in response to you. Who I suppose is my “chosen audience” right now. But thank you for the compliment, I may fold this into a larger presentation/discussion for our supporting members.
If you really wanted to think multi-perspectively you might practice dropping that condemnation and judgement. Usually your words belie your thinking - and it’s clear you have no interest in finding any common ground with the upcoming “red wave”.
Just so I understand, it’s okay for you to use “condemnation and judgment” when you are talking about the left, LGBTQ, Marxist collectivists, etc. — but there’s no room for such a thing when criticizing Trump’s illegal attempt to extinguish our democracy. I don’t know man, it looks to me like you are trying to rig the discourse here.
But yes, it’s true. I don’t have a lot of room for moral relativism when it comes to the question “should a sitting President be allowed to declare himself the winner of an election he objectively lost”. I ABSOLUTELY condemn and hold judgment over Presidents who would attempt such a blatantly corrupt and anti-American action, and political parties who try to excuse or cover for those actions.
It’s absolutely insane to me that this itself does not itself create the “shared reality”. Presidents should not be able to override the voters and declare themselves winner. It’s pretty much American Civics 101. There was a time not long ago when both the right and the left would have easily united around that very basic, core principle of our democracy. There is zero plausible deniability here.
I also don’t have a lot of room for relativism when it comes to issues like rape, political assassinations, purposeful environmental degradation, etc. When it comes to the question, “should we keep having a democracy, or should we become a one-party fascist state”, surprise surprise, I am a bit of an absolutist. My inner amber really comes out. My own interior conservative values get flared up, particularly when it comes to things like “sanctity”.
I also don’t make a lot of room for perspectives that are intentionally avoiding the objective facts of the case, so they can continue to hide behind a veil of plausible deniability, which I see as a coping mechanism to avoid the sort of cognitive dissonance I described above.
the GOP will likely fragment into Right, Right Center and Left Center factions to incorporate all of the US.
One of the very best things that could happen in this country is to eliminate first past the post voting, which would allow both the GOP and the DNC to splinter into their respective factions. Until then, it’s winner-take-all, so that simply cannot/will not happen.
delay in Ukraine support
I think Trump was already impeached for that
