Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-20-2019, 03:53 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Where are the graves of Mitt Romney and John Kerry?
What were they ever kings of?
  #52  
Old 04-20-2019, 04:07 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Where are the graves of Mitt Romney and John Kerry?
Romney is resting in peace in theSenate and Kerry is...dunno. That said I don’t think “strike at the king” means running in an election.

What you posit is sounding so more and more disastrous that I’m starting to think you’re a Repub troll. Why don’t you think McC wouldn’t want an impeachment trial? He would love to tout that as Demo overreach. He’d play it up big time. He’d probably—knowing the Rs hold the Trump card— time it so the final vote is right before the election. It’s foregone Trump will be acquitted. How’d that be for an October surprise?

Mind you, I’m 100% Trump “should” be impeached, but given the political landscape, that dog won’t hunt.
  #53  
Old 04-20-2019, 04:52 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
What were they ever kings of?
They weren't. They came at their respective kings, and missed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
Romney is resting in peace in theSenate and Kerry is...dunno. That said I don’t think “strike at the king” means running in an election.
Can't see that it means "try to impeach him," either.
Quote:
What you posit is sounding so more and more disastrous that I’m starting to think you’re a Repub troll.
I find this notion quite amusing.
Quote:
Why don’t you think McC wouldn’t want an impeachment trial? He would love to tout that as Demo overreach. He’d play it up big time. He’d probably—knowing the Rs hold the Trump card— time it so the final vote is right before the election. It’s foregone Trump will be acquitted. How’d that be for an October surprise?
First of all, we'd more likely be talking this October than next.

Second, the fact that the Republicans would ultimately vote to acquit really doesn't count for much. Everybody knows the game is rigged. But it's an even bigger stage for Democrats - who would have the role of prosecutors in this trial - to put together the most devastating case possible for Trump's criminality.

The Republicans would have to come up with some sort of counterargument, only it wouldn't be in the friendly confines of Fox News, but on the floor of the Senate, with each side getting equal time. People would see, unfiltered by anyone, just how weak that counterargument is.

No, Mitch doesn't want his Senate to be the stage for this play.

Besides, this has been Mitch's consistent M.O. - if there's a debate he doesn't want to have, he doesn't let it start, at least not on his home court.
  #54  
Old 04-20-2019, 05:48 PM
Oly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
.

The Republicans would have to come up with some sort of counterargument,.
Counter argument 1: No collusion.

Counter argument 2: Mueller took a ball on obstruction; Barr got a base hit.

It plays well in the sticks.
  #55  
Old 04-20-2019, 06:22 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oly View Post
Counter argument 1: No collusion.

Counter argument 2: Mueller took a ball on obstruction; Barr got a base hit.

It plays well in the sticks.
How's "no collusion" going to play as a rebuttal to a detailed case showing the dozens of connections between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, and a thorough account of what each side did for the other?

ETA: This is the problem: stuff like "no collusion" plays just fine as a sound bite. But as a rebuttal to a list of contacts with Russian operatives involving everyone from Manafort down to Carter Page, it's gonna look unbelievably dumb.

(I'm not even sure what you mean by your second counterargument, but it would sure sound stupid in the middle of an impeachment trial.)

Last edited by RTFirefly; 04-20-2019 at 06:26 PM.
  #56  
Old 04-20-2019, 06:36 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...Second, the fact that the Republicans would ultimately vote to acquit really doesn't count for much. Everybody knows the game is rigged. But it's an even bigger stage for Democrats - who would have the role of prosecutors in this trial - to put together the most devastating case possible for Trump's criminality. ...
A bigger stage for Democrats, having tried and failed to bring down Trump, to be labeled Losers and Partisan Hacks Obsessed With Losing 2016 and Wasters of Taxpayer Money for a Baseless Attack on a President They Hate.

Why invite that when there is virtually no way to avoid it?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
... Now they know what their vote got them, and they're pretty alarmed. We now know he's a lying, petty, malevolent, incompetent Russian-compromised boob. That is going to make a difference to a number of people in 2020.
Whether or not this is true is an absolutely crucial question. I don't believe it makes sense to simply assume it's true.

If the actual number of voters who fit your description is relatively small--perhaps only 2 or 3% of likely voters--then a choice by Democrats to devote the lion's share of their media-attention time (which is reasonably fixed) to Impeachment Proceedings instead of to something less Trump-centered, may be fatally flawed.

I'm not saying I know that's the case. I'm saying that more data is needed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
... Yes, Democrats must continue to talk about real solutions to the big problems we face. Democratic candidates must focus on these issues more than impeachment. But the Democratic party as a whole would ignore the corruption of the Trump administration at its peril. You can't assume moral high ground if you're afraid to talk about it.
It's not the case that the one and only way to express Democratic opposition to corruption, is to impeach.

It's possible to talk realpolitik to voters. For example, 'There is no parallel in our history for the corruption of this President. He is protected from being removed from office by an equally-corrupt Republican majority in the Senate. I am going to change this situation by means of these policies:[list and explain common-sense policies that will fight against corruption].'


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
Many voters like binary choices, and there is no more fundamental binary choice than between right and wrong. That's what got them to the polls in 2018. We need to keep those voters.
There's right and wrong---and then there's a determination to do all possible to be sure that justice is done.

In April 2013 the Boston Marathon bombings occurred. One of the perpetrators died and the other was captured a few days later.

Imagine if the authorities had decided that the right thing to do was to acknowledge the outrage felt by millions about the heinous nature of the perp's act, and put him on trial right away. That would have been standing up for Right versus Wrong, correct? It would have demonstrated to the world that We Do Not Accept This kind of conduct, yes? That would have been a clear statement of moral purpose. What's the point of having statutes against conduct such as the perp's if we don't use them!?!

So many people would have been grateful if the authorities had Stood Up For Right Versus Wrong, and put the perpetrator on trial immediately. The overwhelming sense of moral outrage many felt after the bombing, would have found a great deal of relief if that trial had started right away.

But in fact, the trial did not start until nearly two years after the perp was captured.

And the reason the authorities did NOT put the perpetrator on trial right after capturing him is that they did not want him to escape justice.

Putting him on trial right away would have pleased SO many people; it would have felt like Right and Justice were winning over lawlessness and evil. It would have felt like the authorities were "doing their jobs."

But would they have been? If they'd tried him right away, he might well have walked, because of some technicality.

Doing their job actually required that they put him on trial when they knew they had the optimal chance of taking him down. When they knew they had the optimal chance of seeing that he would face justice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
The impeachment process takes a long time. It can be slow-walked. If House Dems are smart, they will conduct impeachment proceedings in a way that makes it too late for the matter to reach a vote in the Senate. "Gosh, we just couldn't get it done in time -- voters will have to cast the ultimate vote!" ....
This makes some sense to me. We MUST hear from Mueller. The appropriate members of Congress MUST see the entire un-redacted Report and the underlying materials. These things must happen in short order.

After Congress has the full Report, I would like to see them proceed with an investigation into the question of whether William Barr violated his oath of office, with the lies before Congress and the American people that he is on record as having perpetrated.

Then proceed, step by step, as part of the business of a Democratic House that is generating bills that will make lives better (and trying to get those bills and programs the maximum of publicity).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Nothing to be lost? How about the 2020 election? As multiple people have said, the route to winning is for the Democrats to present a positive vision for the future. Do not simply attack Trump for being Trump.

...What will be perceived as a partisan attack on Trump - and trumpeted as such by Fox News and Breitbart and all the right-wing media - will not change minds. It will harden the opposition, allow them to raise enormous amounts of money, and boost turnout.

The way to win the election is to give voters a positive candidate who stands for a better America that they can buy into. People have shown they want candidates who offer solutions to our current problems. ...
I agree with all this.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 04-20-2019 at 06:39 PM.
  #57  
Old 04-20-2019, 06:44 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
There's no reason Dem candidates can't talk about issues while the House does its thing.
...this. There is nothing stopping the Dems talking about the issues as well as impeaching the President. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Impeaching Trump may or may not be good politickin', but it would be good governance. Trump and the GOP have rendered your country completely untrustworthy; they've shown they're willing to toss out international agreements on a whim, and you've shown you're willing to elect such capricious ignoramuses.
And this. The United States of America has articles of impeachment for a reason. If the dems choose not to use it for entirely partisan reasons then they are abdicating their responsibility to the people of America. This is their job. The GOP have already shown that they will ignore the law, ignore precedent, ignore due process for the sake of votes. And the Dems doing exactly the same thing just takes America further down the road towards irrelevance.

You will note that Kendzior in the tweet-storm doesn't talk about votes. Because Kendzior has made it clear in the past that she thinks that no matter what happens with impeachment there is a very good chance that Trump will win the next election. Defeating Trump won't pivot on impeachment. Trump will only be defeated if the people of America decide to reject Trumpism. And that battle will happen at the grassroots. It will involve hundreds of individual battles against voter suppression. It will involve people fighting this administration in the courts, it will involve people marching on the streets.

Impeachment is only part of the battle. It isn't the entire war. It sends a clear signal: the President is not above the law. By choosing not to impeach the House will send a different signal: the behaviour of the President is normal, and acceptable. Collectively we all said "we cannot normalize the Trump presidency" a couple of years ago. Only TWO YEARS ago. Yet here we are, after being handed a blueprint from Mueller on how to impeach the motherfucker and you are all here arguing that "well, maybe we shouldn't, because REASONS."

Impeaching any other President under exactly these circumstances would be considered entirely the normal thing to do. But people are asking us to reject normalcy for the sake of partisanship.
  #58  
Old 04-20-2019, 06:54 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
A bigger stage for Democrats, having tried and failed to bring down Trump, to be labeled Losers and Partisan Hacks Obsessed With Losing 2016 and Wasters of Taxpayer Money for a Baseless Attack on a President They Hate.

Why invite that when there is virtually no way to avoid it?
Oh, good grief. Trump and Fox and the GOP will try to label the Dems in nasty ways!! Oh noes!!!!!

Trump and Fox and the GOP are going to do that sort of shit, no matter what. And if the Dems live their lives in fear of how they'll be labeled if they do this or that, then they're going to be worse than useless on pretty much every level.
  #59  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:00 PM
carlb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palmetto Bay, FL
Posts: 1,192
I've been in the "don't file articles of impeachment" camp for a while, mostly due to a lot of what's been already discussed; it will be spun out as purely partisan, the Senate will never convict, etc. I've come around lately to the notion that Trump should be impeached, mainly for two reasons:
  1. Every bit of bad governance, incompetence, mendacity, lying, etc. needs to be laid out in one place for all to see. Mueller got a piece of it, the House Intelligence, Ways and Means, and Oversight Committees are likely to uncover more pieces, and journalists will continue to do their part. But I think, for the good of everyone, it needs to all be laid out in one cohesive narrative, in the full light of day, for every citizen to see. And the President needs to be questioned, under oath, about all of it. Show him for the unethical moron he is.
  2. Not impeaching sets a terrible precedent. Donald Trump is as impeachment-worthy an office-holder as the Presidency has ever seen. To, "leave it to the voters," effectively takes impeachment out of consideration for future misdeeds, short of actual murder. We have to have some standards of ethics and good governance, and the President needs to be held accountable, even if the eventual outcome is not what he deserves.
  #60  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:03 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Impeaching any other President under exactly these circumstances would be considered entirely the normal thing to do. But people are asking us to reject normalcy for the sake of partisanship.
People are asking that other people put aside their own emotional needs and instead consider what is best for the country.

I feel that emotional tug toward seeing "Trump Impeached" emblazoned in the headlines. I feel righteous indignation about Trump.

But I disagree that the righteous indignation felt by activists (and others of us who are paying attention) should be the paramount consideration. I disagree that being able to say 'I am standing up for Right' is the paramount consideration.

For me, getting Trump out of the Oval Office is the paramount consideration.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Because Kendzior has made it clear in the past that she thinks that no matter what happens with impeachment there is a very good chance that Trump will win the next election.
I actually follow Kendzior, and am aware that she anticipates years of Trump.

There are people whose livelihoods depend on there being a reason for a Resistance. Perhaps these are not the most reliable advisers for those who want to actually oust the autocrat.
  #61  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:05 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Oh, good grief. Trump and Fox and the GOP will try to label the Dems in nasty ways!! Oh noes!!!!!

Trump and Fox and the GOP are going to do that sort of shit, no matter what. And if the Dems live their lives in fear of how they'll be labeled if they do this or that, then they're going to be worse than useless on pretty much every level.
...today in Fox News:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox News
Embattled US Rep. Ilhan Omar tweets 'happy Passover'

MINNEAPOLIS – U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar is wishing "happy Passover" to Jews commemorating the holiday in her home state of Minnesota and around the world.

Omar is a Somali American and one of the first Muslims elected to Congress. She's been criticized for remarks in recent months on Israel, Jewish influence in Washington, and 9/11 that have drawn accusations of anti-Semitism and insensitivity. She says criticizing the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/embattled...happy-passover

It really is time to stop allowing Trump and Fox and the GOP to control the narrative. They will spin the narrative if the Dems do impeach and they will spin it if they don't. Its how propaganda works.
  #62  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:07 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Oh, good grief. Trump and Fox and the GOP will try to label the Dems in nasty ways!! Oh noes!!!!!

Trump and Fox and the GOP are going to do that sort of shit, no matter what. And if the Dems live their lives in fear of how they'll be labeled if they do this or that, then they're going to be worse than useless on pretty much every level.
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carlb View Post
I've been in the "don't file articles of impeachment" camp for a while, mostly due to a lot of what's been already discussed; it will be spun out as purely partisan, the Senate will never convict, etc. I've come around lately to the notion that Trump should be impeached, mainly for two reasons:
  1. Every bit of bad governance, incompetence, mendacity, lying, etc. needs to be laid out in one place for all to see. Mueller got a piece of it, the House Intelligence, Ways and Means, and Oversight Committees are likely to uncover more pieces, and journalists will continue to do their part. But I think, for the good of everyone, it needs to all be laid out in one cohesive narrative, in the full light of day, for every citizen to see. And the President needs to be questioned, under oath, about all of it. Show him for the unethical moron he is.
  2. Not impeaching sets a terrible precedent. Donald Trump is as impeachment-worthy an office-holder as the Presidency has ever seen. To, "leave it to the voters," effectively takes impeachment out of consideration for future misdeeds, short of actual murder. We have to have some standards of ethics and good governance, and the President needs to be held accountable, even if the eventual outcome is not what he deserves.
And yes. So well said.

Let the Republicans try and defend against the actual facts. Frankly, I think they're shit scared of having to do that. There are no reasonable defenses, and they know it. I see desperation in every narrative they're trying to advance.

My best understanding of the main reason Speaker Pelosi and others have been reluctant to proceed with impeachment is their very real concern that it will leave the nation divided for a generation or longer. I'm afraid that has already happened. It won't be better or worse because Dems roll over and refuse -- again -- to go on the offense.
  #63  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:16 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
People are asking that other people put aside their own emotional needs and instead consider what is best for the country.
...I haven't made any argument about "emotional need." My argument is entirely based on what I consider is best for the United States of America.

Quote:
I feel that emotional tug toward seeing "Trump Impeached" emblazoned in the headlines. I feel righteous indignation about Trump.

But I disagree that the righteous indignation felt by activists (and others of us who are paying attention) should be the paramount consideration. I disagree that being able to say 'I am standing up for Right' is the paramount consideration.
Here is what Elizabeth Warren has said about impeachment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth Warren
The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States.
That isn't righteous indignation. That is a statement about what she considers to be her constitutional duty. If you want to argue with people expressing righteous indignation then go find those people and argue with them. Because that isn't the reason I'm in favour of impeachment.

Quote:
For me, getting Trump out of the Oval Office is the paramount consideration.
Its of paramount consideration to me as well.

Quote:
I actually follow Kendzior, and am aware that she anticipates years of Trump.

There are people whose livelihoods depend on there being a reason for a Resistance. Perhaps these are not the most reliable advisers for those who want to actually oust the autocrat.
This is lame. Implying "Kendzior is in this for the money." That she doesn't really want to "oust the autocrat" because that will cut off her income stream. Do you really believe that? You claim you follow her, but you think her abject terror at what many more years of Trump will do to America is all pretend?
  #64  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:39 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Oh, good grief. Trump and Fox and the GOP will try to label the Dems in nasty ways!! Oh noes!!!!!
Trump and Fox and the GOP are going to do that sort of shit, no matter what. And if the Dems live their lives in fear of how they'll be labeled if they do this or that, then they're going to be worse than useless on pretty much every level.
Of course Fox et al are perfectly willing to make stuff up. Of course they are in the business of saying ugly things, and will never cease doing so for any reason whatsoever.

But the ugly things will have some basis in truth if Dems put all efforts into a doomed show trial, and that's bad for Democratic turnout in 2020. Why should voters turn out for pols so stupid that they threw away their chance at victory for a self-indulgent exercise in futility?


Impeachment makes sense in one and only one circumstance: if twenty GOP Senators start to fear they will lose their seats if they vote to protect Donald Trump.

And this is not impossible.

What it will take is NOT:
  • Democratic posturing about Doing What's Right
  • Democratic posturing about If We Don't Impeach This Guy, Who WOULD We Impeach?
  • Democratic speeches about how unprecedented Trump's conduct is [though it is]
  • Democratic speeches about how awful Trump is [though he is]
  • Lengthy hearings emphasizing Trump's lies and evasions
  • Lengthy hearings emphasizing Trump's attempts to save himself from accountability
  • Lengthy hearings emphasizing Trump's bullying

None of those things bother the voters who put those GOP Senators into office in the least. It is utterly pointless to prioritize messaging on these points. Mention them, sure---but expect it to change the minds of the voters we need to reach--the GOP ones who need to call their GOP senators and say 'deep six this guy if you want my vote'? No.

What Democrats SHOULD do, to get 20 GOP senators to start to fear for their seats if they vote to acquit Trump, is:
  • Emphasize Trump's servile, fawning, subservient, obsequious, and groveling relationship to Vladimir Putin.

The voters we need calling their GOP senators to tell them "do not acquit this guy" do NOT care that Trump welcomed Putin's help in the 2016 election. They like Putin. They admire his ruthlessness (and his whiteness). They don't care that Trump likes Putin.

But they DO care that Trump is Putin's bitch.

So far they've been able to ignore this clear fact. FoxNews never mentions it, of course, and the few pieces of evidence they've been exposed to can be rationalized away.

But Mueller's report contains evidence that should be emphasized and pounded and shouted and repeated and explained and reiterated by Democrats. Hit those pieces of evidence hard. Make graphs. Show the videos: Trump's sheepish entry into the press conference room on 16 July 2018 in Helsinki, eyes down, hangdog---clearly Vlad had just given him a dressing down (probably over Trump's failure to get rid of sanctions). Trump beaming like a 5-year-old in the receiving line at the Paris WWI memorial when Putin appeared. And most of all, the 'can you believe how we are totally in control?' greeting between Putin and Saudi Arabia's defacto leader Mohammad bin Salman, at the December 2018 G20 at Buenos Aires.

This is the theme that will bother enough GOP voters, to make it worthwhile to impeach Trump.

Because if you don't get those twenty GOP Senators, you are just wasting the opportunity to make a real difference in this world. An impeachment effort that is certain to lose is the purest kind of self-indulgence there is.






Putin & MBS celebrate their ownership of a US President:
https://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-trump-1239240


Trump's just-been-scolded entrance into the Helsinki presser is about a minute 50 seconds in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRiSbybC9yI

Trump's creepy smile, November 2018: https://www.toledoblade.com/opinion/...es/20181117003

Interesting on the body language of Trump, Putin:
https://medium.com/@DrGJackBrown/bod...d-1f95a8e1625b
  #65  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:41 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...this. There is nothing stopping the Dems talking about the issues as well as impeaching the President. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Yes, they are if all that cable news carries 24 hours a day is impeachment.
Quote:
Impeachment is only part of the battle. It isn't the entire war. It sends a clear signal: the President is not above the law. By choosing not to impeach the House will send a different signal: the behaviour of the President is normal, and acceptable. Collectively we all said "we cannot normalize the Trump presidency" a couple of years ago. Only TWO YEARS ago. Yet here we are, after being handed a blueprint from Mueller on how to impeach the motherfucker and you are all here arguing that "well, maybe we shouldn't, because REASONS."

Impeaching any other President under exactly these circumstances would be considered entirely the normal thing to do. But people are asking us to reject normalcy for the sake of partisanship.
Now you're the one who making binary assumptions. The House will hold hearings every week for eighteen months. They are not normalizing any behaviors. They can go far beyond the narrow impeachment issues. This is far superior a route for getting the truth out to the public.

In short, we can have the investigation and castigation of Trump while at the same time not interfering with the apotheosizing of the Democratic candidates. Win/win instead of lose/lose.
  #66  
Old 04-20-2019, 08:22 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Yes, they are if all that cable news carries 24 hours a day is impeachment.
...you say this like its a bad thing.

Quote:
Now you're the one who making binary assumptions. The House will hold hearings every week for eighteen months.
You've already made this claim. I've asked for the schedule, you haven't provided it.

Quote:
They are not normalizing any behaviors. They can go far beyond the narrow impeachment issues. This is far superior a route for getting the truth out to the public.
"Superior" is a subjective, not an objective claim. You haven't made a case that following the route of "holding hearings every week for eighteen months" is superior to impeaching. I'm prepared to change my mind: I've already changed it once. But preparing and holding 72 hearings over the next 18 months instead of 1 impeachment and several other related hearings sounds like an absolute nightmare to me.

Quote:
In short, we can have the investigation and castigation of Trump while at the same time not interfering with the apotheosizing of the Democratic candidates. Win/win instead of lose/lose.
Contextualizing this as "win/win" or "loose/loose" is the problem. We don't know what the fuck the end game is going to be. I'm not going to predict that by impeaching Trump it will result in him loosing in 2020. But conversely you can't predict that by not impeaching you guarantee Trump is going to loose. So we have to take that off the table. And we have to examine the decision on whether or not to impeach or not entirely on the merits of whether or not we think what Trump has done is impeachable. The decision not to impeach because it will "damage the Dems chances in 2020" is a partisan decision. And IMHO it isn't the best decision for America.
  #67  
Old 04-20-2019, 08:44 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Contextualizing this as "win/win" or "loose/loose" is the problem. We don't know what the fuck the end game is going to be. I'm not going to predict that by impeaching Trump it will result in him loosing in 2020. But conversely you can't predict that by not impeaching you guarantee Trump is going to loose.
Got it. Your opinion is an opinion, but my opinion has to be proven or it's not worth anything.

Fortunately, I'm not taking this too seriously. I don't want to loose my mind.
  #68  
Old 04-20-2019, 08:57 PM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
But they DO care that Trump is Putin's bitch.

So far they've been able to ignore this clear fact. FoxNews never mentions it, of course, and the few pieces of evidence they've been exposed to can be rationalized away.
That's just it. Much of their exposure of awareness to Trump's obsequiousness toward Putin that lives in their memory banks has been due to

- homophobic cartoons depicting Trump and Putin
- homophobic memes depicting Trump and Putin
- homophobic artwork depicting Trump and Putin
- homophobic jokes about Trump and Putin
- homophobic rants about Trump and Putin

What of it is supposed to reach FOX viewers? If the Democrats hammer it and behave themselves, Tucker Carlson will just talk about someone in the media who is being or was homophobic.
  #69  
Old 04-20-2019, 09:04 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Got it. Your opinion is an opinion, but my opinion has to be proven or it's not worth anything.
...that is, quite literally, the opposite of what I just said.
  #70  
Old 04-21-2019, 11:16 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,734
Given that there is 0 chance of Republicans voting to remove Trump from office, the discussion really hinges on what impeachment is going to to do voters in 2020.

Broadly speaking there are three groups. The Republicans, the Democrats, and the mealy mouthed middle.

The Democrats, want blood and are going to be disappointed if Trump is allowed to skate. However I think that the displeasure is most likely to make itself apparent the in the primary. This is why Warren and all of the other Dem candidates are lining up behind it. BUt as for the general, if you are rabid enough that you want a useless vote to remove Trump from office, you are probably also motivated enough to cast that vote yourself. The protest voters of 2016 have learned their lesson. If its a choice between a wimpy Dem who may as well be a Republican on one side and evil incarnate on the other they will make the right choice.

As for the Republicans, Trump is their guy, but a fair number of them realize that he's not their ideal candidate, and so may have midling enthusiasm to vote for him in November. The one way to galvanize that enthusiasm is with a partisan witch hunt in which the Dems refuse to accept the complete exoneration of the president as contained in the Mueller report and try to remove him anyway. We must defend him from this partisan coup.

As for the mealy mouthed middle. They are smaller than they were but they still exist and can swing the election. They haven't been paying too much attention, but disdaining both sides equally they can demonstrate their superiority over either side. One side says Trumps innocent, one side says he's guilty so the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. In any case it's all politics as usual. A set of hearings where one side is chanting witch hunt and the other side is presenting scads of evidence is just going to be tuned out in favor of speculating about Beyonce's album. What this country needs is to get rid of all of this partisan bullshit on both sides and fix whats wrong with this country. As such, bringing for the impeachment hearings that everyone knows aren't going to lead to actual impeachment is just the thing to prove that the Dems are just as much party before country as the Republicans.

So given that hearings will have little effect on one group and a generally negative effect on the other two it seems poor strategy.

Another disadvantage of running further investigations as part of an impeachment process, is that it is time limited, and inevitably ends with a victory of Trump. Since it makes no sense to impeach the president in October 2020, the hearing will have to be wrapped up long before then and after it inevitably fails to remove Trump from office, it will be really hard for the Dems to justify yet more investigations. So by the time the election rolls around they will be old news with the only thing people remembering is that it failed in the end. Far better to just continue the slow trickle of investigation and sandal coming bit by bit throughout the next 18 months. With the Democratic leadership indicating their desire to leave it up the wisdom of the American people rather than usurping that authority for themselves.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 04-21-2019 at 11:18 AM.
  #71  
Old 04-21-2019, 02:50 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,359
Rather than impeachment, I'd like to see several investigations, each with narrower scope: Kushner's security clearance, campaign finance violations, perjuries by several top Administration officials, Trump finances, etc.
  #72  
Old 04-21-2019, 06:09 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Of course Fox et al are perfectly willing to make stuff up. Of course they are in the business of saying ugly things, and will never cease doing so for any reason whatsoever.

But the ugly things will have some basis in truth if Dems put all efforts into a doomed show trial,
I'm gonna have to double down on my 'oh noes,' I'm afraid. I also disagree with your characterization of impeachment as a 'show trial' if the Dems have the goods on Trump.

Wikipedia on 'show trials':
Quote:
A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors.
IOW, where the outcome of 'guilty' has been prearranged.
Quote:
and that's bad for Democratic turnout in 2020.
So you say. But I say the opposite is true. Who knows?
Quote:
Why should voters turn out for pols so stupid that they threw away their chance at victory for a self-indulgent exercise in futility?
I want to meet these voters. I don't believe they exist.

It's like saying Dem voters stayed home in 2016 because they were mad at Dems for throwing away the 2016 election by nominating Hillary. I remember doing the time warp...

Last edited by RTFirefly; 04-21-2019 at 06:10 PM.
  #73  
Old 04-21-2019, 06:17 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,345
Brian Beutler makes a case for impeachment hearings here.

As a matter of duty, public safety, etc.:
Quote:
The combination of impunity from prosecution, a faithless attorney general, and a Congress that says impeachment isn’t worth it is a bit like hanging a flashing sign outside Trump’s bedroom window that screams “YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW.” It tells him that no one with any power will discourage him from colluding with Russia (or the Saudis or his new best friend Kim Jong Un) to win the election just as he did in 2016. The “politically cautious” move is actually an invitation to him—to work in tandem with the next authoritarian regime that’s willing to criminally sabotage the Democrats’ eventual nominee.
And on how this intersects with electoral politics:

Quote:
The real importance of impeachment at this point is to shelter the country from what Trump and his allies will do if Democrats remain aimless. Democrats aren’t really buying time for themselves. They are buying time for Trump to get the GOP back on its horribly dishonest but unified message that he has been exonerated and that the investigation itself was criminal. If Democrats don’t pull the country into a debate about impeachment, we won’t get a draw. We will get a debate about investigating the investigators and jailing Trump’s critics.

Look, I want a president 46 who is good on policy and can manage a bureaucracy and not alienate foreign leaders and all those happy, positive things. I would like to see someone win this campaign "talking about the issues."

But there is just about no way that the election next year is not going to be overwhelmingly a referendum on Trump. He is impossible for the media to ignore, and I don't think Obama himself, or Mayor Pete with twenty extra rescue dogs, or frickin Oprah could draw their gaze away. He won't allow it, and the media can't help it. And the media's presentation is how persuadable -- i.e., low-information -- voters will see it.

TLDR: ITMFA. He deserves it, and the politics are a net win (if only because avoiding impeachment is worse).
  #74  
Old 04-21-2019, 06:23 PM
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,490
I agree with those who say that impeaching him now would only increase his chances of re-election (by allowing it to be used as a campaign point after his acquittal in the Senate).

However, I wouldn't be surprised if, assuming he loses the election, they start impeachment hearings the day after the election. What would they have to lose?
  #75  
Old 04-21-2019, 06:49 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,538
If impeachment won't fly, could we try an exorcism?
  #76  
Old 04-21-2019, 07:04 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Not only that, but democrats don't win win punishment and negatives on their mind.

Two polls I heard yesterday, one from an NBC News pollster and one I saw on CNN. Among independents - which we desperately need to win in 2020 - Russia/Mueller came in between 8th and 10th in terms of importance towards 2020 vote. In the CNN one it was testing at 1%.
So...

How many people cared about climate change before the most recent spate of disasters, protests, and more?

We're making the mistake here of chasing politics, not leading it. Why yes, right now, Mueller isn't seen as a big deal. That's fucking shameful! The most charitable interpretation of the Muller report (that isn't flat-out lying like Barr did) involves a president who sees himself above the law treating a hostile foreign plot to intervene in our election as an opportunity for his campaign, then doing everything in his power to cover it up, up to and including several things which are probably obstruction of justice. If people don't care about that, we need to figure out how to make people care about that. Trump may be Teflon, but past a certain point it gets fucking ridiculous. Either people legitimately do not care about any scandal he's involved in (ergo we're basically just fucked as a country no matter what), or we need to do a better job messaging this shit.

And if we can't, well, guess who will? Here's a recent Fox News headline: "Kayleigh McEnany: Mueller probe was a politically motivated act against an innocent president". Hmm. I see no way that could go horribly wrong. Oh, and of course it's Clinton's Fault. If you think that if we just let them control the narrative like that, this isn't going to turn into "let's go after those who went after Trump"... well, I think that level of optimism is downright dangerous and shows a serious lack of basic pattern recognition skills.

In a sane world, the Mueller report would be the end of Trump's presidency (and probably the end of his life as a free man). The fact that we live in a world that has gone batshit bonkers just means we need to work a little harder to make people grasp that. The fact that people don't care about it right now doesn't mean they won't if there's a good reason to care about it. A good reason like... Oh, I dunno... impeachment hearings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
What comes out in the public hearings might cost him the election though. Besides, it's Congress' job. If Trump has done something to merit impeachment, odd as that may sound, he should be impeached.
This is the other thing. If we cannot impeach Trump, then there is no possible purpose for impeachment to be part of the constitution*. There has never been a better argument to use this tool in the history of our republic.

*I just remembered that given the opportunity Mitch McConnell would absolutely impeach the president, vice president, and however many other people it'd be necessary to impeach to put a republican back in power so this isn't technically true.
  #77  
Old 04-21-2019, 07:57 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
That's just it. Much of their exposure of awareness to Trump's obsequiousness toward Putin that lives in their memory banks has been due to

- homophobic cartoons depicting Trump and Putin
- homophobic memes depicting Trump and Putin
- homophobic artwork depicting Trump and Putin
- homophobic jokes about Trump and Putin
- homophobic rants about Trump and Putin

What of it is supposed to reach FOX viewers? If the Democrats hammer it and behave themselves, Tucker Carlson will just talk about someone in the media who is being or was homophobic.
Excellent point about some large volume of references to Trump-and-Putin being based in homophobia.

That should be pointed out to all who want to see Trump gone, and they should take a pledge to lay off that stupid and counterproductive (and ugly) approach. Trump's subservience to Putin IS a security issue.

It's nothing to do with sexuality, and people on the left need to realize it.




Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...I also disagree with your characterization of impeachment as a 'show trial' if the Dems have the goods on Trump. ...
There's the problem. Dems do NOT have the goods on Trump so far as Republicans are concerned. Republicans see nothing wrong with lying, obstructing, and bullying.

Democrats need to talk about what DOES bother Republicans, and stop being so intent on preaching to the choir.



Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
I agree with those who say that impeaching him now would only increase his chances of re-election (by allowing it to be used as a campaign point after his acquittal in the Senate).

However, I wouldn't be surprised if, assuming he loses the election, they start impeachment hearings the day after the election. What would they have to lose?
Not a bad idea.

I also favor Democrats moving forward with focused hearings, as septimus suggested. Stick it to Trump on the security issue, and the servile-to-Kremlin-wishes issue. Call for a vote of censure and get Republicans on the record as being fine with Trump's security and servility issues.
  #78  
Old 04-21-2019, 08:37 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
There's the problem. Dems do NOT have the goods on Trump so far as Republicans are concerned. Republicans see nothing wrong with lying, obstructing, and bullying.

Democrats need to talk about what DOES bother Republicans,
Why? The remaining NeverTrumpers will vote against Trump anyway, and the 40% are unreachable.
Quote:
and stop being so intent on preaching to the choir.
There I disagree. We're in a polarized world where even Presidential elections are more about turning out those on your side than about reaching the vanishing 'median voter.' There's a lot of marginal voters out there who are sure D's IF they vote. Being the Scared Rabbit Party yet again isn't the way to give them a reason.

Then there's the matter of Trump himself. The guy loves attacking, but he's lousy at playing defense. Here's an opportunity to have him playing defense for the rest of the year, and the Dems are going to piss it away.
  #79  
Old 04-21-2019, 09:15 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
The Republican Senate is not going to vote to remove him based on the Mueller report. Therefore, going through an impeachment trial would be a waste of time and energy. It would make us no better than Newt Gingrich.

Keep hammering away at him with Congressional investigations, and force the Republicans to cast votes on strongly worded resolutions of censure. But unless one of those investigations turns up some huge smoking gun, it would be irresponsible political showmanship to go through the motions of an impeachment proceeding when the outcome is predetermined.

Of course, if you can make a case that an impeachment trial would improve the Dems' chances of winning in 2020, that would be different. But so far I'm not hearing anything that's convincing me it wouldn't be better to focus on issues rather than on just bashing Trump. I don't think a trial would be likely to move public opinion much; after all, Mueller didn't find any solid evidence of collusion, and although we all know that legally it is possible to convict for obstruction of justice even if there was no underlying crime, politically that's a huge deal.

I don't mean to equate Trump's offenses against democracy with Clinton's personal sleaziness, but this argument that "He really, really deserves to be impeached, and if we have a trial, all those people who don't currently agree will HAVE to see that we're right!" is exactly the same line of thinking that Gingrich et al used.
  #80  
Old 04-21-2019, 10:06 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
The Republican Senate is not going to vote to remove him based on the Mueller report. Therefore, going through an impeachment trial would be a waste of time and energy. It would make us no better than Newt Gingrich.

Keep hammering away at him with Congressional investigations, and force the Republicans to cast votes on strongly worded resolutions of censure. But unless one of those investigations turns up some huge smoking gun, it would be irresponsible political showmanship to go through the motions of an impeachment proceeding when the outcome is predetermined.

Of course, if you can make a case that an impeachment trial would improve the Dems' chances of winning in 2020, that would be different. But so far I'm not hearing anything that's convincing me it wouldn't be better to focus on issues rather than on just bashing Trump. I don't think a trial would be likely to move public opinion much; after all, Mueller didn't find any solid evidence of collusion, and although we all know that legally it is possible to convict for obstruction of justice even if there was no underlying crime, politically that's a huge deal.

I don't mean to equate Trump's offenses against democracy with Clinton's personal sleaziness, but this argument that "He really, really deserves to be impeached, and if we have a trial, all those people who don't currently agree will HAVE to see that we're right!" is exactly the same line of thinking that Gingrich et al used.


I'm sorry, but I can't agree. In re: your last point, "Because it's the right thing to do," would NEVER have been Gingrich's rationale.

Impeach him. Even if the Senate won't convict. Spend the political capital regardless. If you're going to fail, at least fail with honor. Better to fail to do the right thing than success doing the wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #81  
Old 04-21-2019, 10:28 PM
galen ubal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I'm sorry, but I can't agree. In re: your last point, "Because it's the right thing to do," would NEVER have been Gingrich's rationale.

Impeach him. Even if the Senate won't convict. Spend the political capital regardless. If you're going to fail, at least fail with honor. Better to fail to do the right thing than success doing the wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Seriously.
If you're that ready to give up, roll over and show your belly, how is that going to play with the electorate? If you can't bother to fight for your beliefs, why should I bother to support you? Were I one of the unaffiliated voters, I can't imagine why I'd support a party that is so cowardly, so willing to throw aside principle for "pragmatism" Hell, that's for Republicans!

Why is this even a question?
__________________
Salvator apiae.
  #82  
Old 04-21-2019, 11:52 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
I’d rather have the party stand on principles of universal health care and fighting climate change than on pointing at one guy and saying “He’s the problem!”

Of COURSE Trump should be removed from office, and the fact that he won’t be is a terrifying statement about the crisis of our democracy. But it’s still a fact, and ignoring facts is for Republicans. Bush should have been impeached, too, and a lot of Dems wanted to do that when we took the House in 2006. Restraint worked out OK in that case.

If impeachment proceedings will increase the chance of Trump leaving office on or before next Inauguration Day, then do it. That’s the only criterion. Forget this purist “We MUST impeach because some threshold of awfulness has been met, regardless of the likely consequences of that action!” crap.
  #83  
Old 04-21-2019, 11:57 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,838
Set the procedures in motion, the Pubbies will do everything in their power to slow the thing down. Good. Make the investigations public, put out all the evidence as it surfaces. The Republicans will keep fighting, slow-walking, and be seen to do so. Good.

It wouldn't much help the Dems to push hard, just keep piling up the evidence, in calm, plodding Mueller style. By then, the same people who are pissing and moaning now about the Dems being over eager will be bitching about how chickenshit they were, how they would have pressed the case.

Il Douche is our best hope of bringing together the brown, the black, the women, the gay and the persons of no particular variety into a coalition, a unity. Maybe not actually making America great again, but definitely better!

Always look on the blight side of life....
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #84  
Old 04-22-2019, 01:08 AM
joebuck20 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post

Barring absolute evidence of an indisputable crime, impeachment is a political process. The Senate will not convict, rendering it useless. Worse than useless. As a political process it's deadly poison. Ralph Waldo Emerson — "When you strike at a king, you must kill him."
This.

If you're going to do battle against someone like Trump, you can't do it half-assed. You have to be sure you can go all the way.

He's proven repeatedly over the past several years that one would be extremely foolish to underestimate him. More than a dozen Republican primary opponents made the mistake of underestimating him. None of them are in the White House. He is. Hillary Clinton and the entire Democratic establishment made the mistake of underestimating him. She's not president. He is.

Trump is like Obi Wan Kenobi in the sense that if you try to bring him down, he'll just come back stronger than you can possibly imagine.

The Democrats can go ahead and try to impeach. But when the Senate inevitably fails to convict, his supporters will see it as a full exoneration and just become more emboldened and motivated than ever.
  #85  
Old 04-22-2019, 01:47 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebuck20 View Post
But when the Senate inevitably fails to convict, his supporters will see it as a full exoneration
...they saw it as a full exoneration when Burr released his first 4-page memo. They will see it as a full exoneration if the Dems don't impeach. There isn't a scenario where his supporters won't believe he is fully exonerated. So why are we letting their reactions dictate whether or not to impeach?

Quote:
and just become more emboldened and motivated than ever.
Can you quantify this somehow? More emboldened than what? More motivated than when? And can you quantify what effect a more "emboldened base" will have on the next election?
  #86  
Old 04-22-2019, 02:58 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 11,998
Impeach him. If Trump is allowed to flagrantly break the law as President, what does that mean for our country? Our system falters and fails if the President cannot be held to account. We become a dictatorship, instead of a republic. He should be impeached and tried in the Senate. As Elizabeth Warren says, it is our constitutional duty to get this done.

I think it's important enough to do this that even losing the election would be a fair price. We're not looking at the long game. Consider the Republicans and the Supreme Court. Their actions undoubtedly damaged them at the mid-terms, but so what? They've got 2 justices in lifetime positions. It was far more important to them to do that then it was to win at the mid-terms. Impeaching the President for his crimes must be done. No one is above the law.
  #87  
Old 04-22-2019, 07:16 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
Removing Trump just gives you Pence, and the same appointment authority but without the political baggage. We may not need impeachment itself (let's see what future indictments are coming via the SDNY or NYS), but we do need to keep the broad issue of his fitness for office prominent enough to limit the damage he can do. Certainly that starts with getting Mueller and his witnesses to testify publicly about what they found and why they did what they did.

Nixon's end came only after months of hearings, on TV every day. Fox won't be able to spin it well enough for that long.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 04-22-2019 at 07:17 AM.
  #88  
Old 04-22-2019, 07:21 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
That should be pointed out to all who want to see Trump gone, and they should take a pledge to lay off that stupid and counterproductive (and ugly) approach. Trump's subservience to Putin IS a security issue.

It's nothing to do with sexuality, and people on the left need to realize it.
It doesn't matter whether any one person does it. Even if assiduously followed it would be about as effective as trying to follow a "don't feel the troll" policy: someone would make a sexual reference and CFSG supporters would nutpick this as representative of all of the other sides' views.
  #89  
Old 04-22-2019, 07:59 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
... The United States of America has articles of impeachment for a reason. If the dems choose not to use it for entirely partisan reasons then they are abdicating their responsibility to the people of America. This is their job. ...
I can agree with this. Really, if not now then what constitutes "worthy" of impeachment? A hypothetical child molester President? Of course the Senate won't convict, or even participate, if McConnell can swing that. But I think Democrats will forever regret it if there is no impeachment.
  #90  
Old 04-22-2019, 08:12 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,533
If Pelosi wasn't willing to do it for lying us into a war of aggression, she won't be willing to do it for mere corruption, conspiracy, and obstruction.
  #91  
Old 04-22-2019, 09:05 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Nixon's end came only after months of hearings, on TV every day. Fox won't be able to spin it well enough for that long.
I don't agree. I am convinced that if Fox news existed in Nixon's time, he would have served out his term.
  #92  
Old 04-22-2019, 10:32 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I’d rather have the party stand on principles of universal health care and fighting climate change than on pointing at one guy and saying “He’s the problem!”
Why are we treating this as an either-or situation? Has America lost the ability to chew gum and walk?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #93  
Old 04-22-2019, 10:39 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Trump will be in office for another 21 months. He's removed all the people around him who would have restrained him, and replaced them with lackeys who will do his bidding.

At the very least, impeachment would give him another focus than figuring out how next to damage the Republic. It will occupy his thoughts, it will stay in his head, until it runs its course late this year. (How late depends on whether there's an impeachment trial, or whether Mitch puts the kibosh on the whole thing. But if they authorize an impeachment investigation now, it'll be over and done with before Christmas at worst. At which point he'll have to start thinking about his re-election campaign more than every once in a while.

Between impeachment and the campaign, he'll have enough shiny objects to keep his attention for the remainder of his term.
  #94  
Old 04-22-2019, 10:42 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Why are we treating this as an either-or situation? Has America lost the ability to chew gum and walk?
I don't know about America, but we're talking about the Democratic Party here.
  #95  
Old 04-22-2019, 10:44 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebuck20 View Post
The Democrats can go ahead and try to impeach. But when the Senate inevitably fails to convict, his supporters will see it as a full exoneration and just become more emboldened and motivated than ever.
And what will they do that they're not already doing?
  #96  
Old 04-22-2019, 11:17 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Why are we treating this as an either-or situation? Has America lost the ability to chew gum and walk?
Agreed. Here's what I think the message should be:

Quote:
We don't want to impeach. We're busy with other issues, and frankly we don't think the Senate will complete their duty, due to Mitch McConnell's partisanship. And we think impeachment has historically hurt the party doing impeachment.

But that doesn't matter. Impeachment is one of our constitutional duties, and we're going to follow through on our oaths of office, even if it hurts us on election day. At least one major party needs to hold country above party.

But we won't just impeach. We'll also file bills to help Americans obtain health care, to protect American liberties, and to address climate change, the biggest threat to our nation. We'll also work to end foreign subversion of our democracy. If at any point Republicans are ready to work with us, on any of our constitutional duties, our doors are open.
Any time Republicans talk about how Democrats are wasting time with impeachment, Democrats should be able to respond with a raft of bills they've passed through the House and are waiting for the Senate to act on.

Pelosi, if she wants, can teach the house Dems to walk and chew gum at the same time.
  #97  
Old 04-22-2019, 11:28 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,752
Hey LHOD, who are you quoting in that second box? Good stuff, that.
  #98  
Old 04-22-2019, 02:59 PM
snoe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Seriously.
If you're that ready to give up, roll over and show your belly, how is that going to play with the electorate? If you can't bother to fight for your beliefs, why should I bother to support you? Were I one of the unaffiliated voters, I can't imagine why I'd support a party that is so cowardly, so willing to throw aside principle for "pragmatism" Hell, that's for Republicans!
I'm a pacifist by temperament and a pragmatist based on experience, but seconded. Or n'thd. This is one of those (insert any of a number of current season of Game of Thrones spoilers here) moments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...they saw it as a full exoneration when Burr released his first 4-page memo. They will see it as a full exoneration if the Dems don't impeach. There isn't a scenario where his supporters won't believe he is fully exonerated. So why are we letting their reactions dictate whether or not to impeach?
I have sympathy for "don't waste time on X if it probably won't work" arguments, but they only make sense if there's something besides X that has a good chance of having a better payoff.

And of course, as others have pointed out: impeachment is a process. In Nixon's case, it started with having hearings about whether to recommend impeachment.

And -- it's the right thing to do. Why not do the right thing when that's really obvious, even if it's risky? (Hey, it works in the movies!)
  #99  
Old 04-22-2019, 05:39 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Agreed. Here's what I think the message should be:
...
Any time Republicans talk about how Democrats are wasting time with impeachment, Democrats should be able to respond with a raft of bills they've passed through the House and are waiting for the Senate to act on.
Pelosi, if she wants, can teach the house Dems to walk and chew gum at the same time.
I agree with this, so long as the emphasis really IS on*:
**working on sensible bills that will demonstrably make life better for 99% of Americans
**continuing to keep the heat on Trump with public hearings on:
  • his actions and decisions that make him a security risk
  • his being compromised--vulnerable to manipulation or worse by Russia, Saudi Arabia, and any other nation for which there's evidence
  • his corruption --from violations of the Emoluments provisions to his business deals
  • his attempts to undermine election security
  • his attempts to undermine the civil service and replace it with a spoils system (with required pledges of personal loyalty to him)

That last one has been largely pushed aside by other news:

Quote:
The Trump administration is planning to dismantle the Office of Personnel Management, a decades-old federal agency that oversees the federal government's civil service, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

...According to the Post, the White House is asking Congress for $50 million in fiscal year 2020 to execute the plan and OPM does not "intend to lay anyone off but instead will shrink the workforce through retirements and unfilled vacancies." ...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/polit...ion/index.html

Obviously Trump's people aren't stating 'we want to throw out career civil servants and replace them with people loyal to Trump'---but that's basically what it is. This needs to be explored in hearings, and the probable results laid out for the American people. Do we really want the IRS officials making decisions on who to audit, being Trump toadies? Do we want the Federal Marshals and election-oversight officials to have pledged personal loyalty to Trump?





Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
...Impeach him. Even if the Senate won't convict. Spend the political capital regardless. If you're going to fail, at least fail with honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Impeach him. ...I think it's important enough to do this that even losing the election would be a fair price. ...
So feeling Noble and Righteous in a Lost Cause is more important than removing Trump from office?

That's either self-indulgence, or foreign-adversary propaganda.




*As opposed to an emphasis on Look How Special We Are, Impeaching! Even Though We're Handing Trump the Massive Gift of a Senate Acquittal! Such posturing would not be acceptable to voters who care about the likely outcome. It will disgust many and drive down participation by Democrats in November 2020.

If impeachment is inevitable---and the way the bots are pushing it, it probably is---then it has to be done without posturing about Virtue and Duty.
  #100  
Old 04-22-2019, 05:49 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
So feeling Noble and Righteous in a Lost Cause is more important than removing Trump from office?

That's either self-indulgence, or foreign-adversary propaganda.


*As opposed to an emphasis on Look How Special We Are, Impeaching! Even Though We're Handing Trump the Massive Gift of a Senate Acquittal! Such posturing would not be acceptable to voters who care about the likely outcome. It will disgust many and drive down participation by Democrats in November 2020.

If impeachment is inevitable---and the way the bots are pushing it, it probably is---then it has to be done without posturing about Virtue and Duty.
What is this, False Dichotomy Day? I can't keep up with all these wacky holidays they come up with: Presidents' Day, Cesar Chavez Day, False Dichotomy Day...

How does Senate Republican intransigence and partisanship translate into less participation by Democrats in November 2020?? Yes, yes, Clinton, but he was impeached -- when you get right down to where the cheese holds together -- for a blow job. By a bunch of guys with extramarital affairs and illegitimate children on their records. So, no, I really don't think the comparison is valid.

Doing the right thing -- playing out the constitutional process of impeaching a sitting president for malfeasance - is "posturing about Virtue and Duty"??
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017