Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:15 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274

Is there a silver lining to Trump's win?


I am not a lawyer, but for a layperson I have a pretty good understanding of the political and legal system of the U.S. I would appreciate a more expert take on this idea, though.

So, predictably Trumo got off on a (nearly) party-line vote. It did raise some eyebrows that the Senate opted to not hear additional witnesses or admit additional documentary evidence. Obviously, POTUS faces no legal consequences for the charges and this would seem to embolden him. However, couldn't it be that this has greatly weakened the presidency? Even his next term, if it comes to that?

Let's say, hypothetically that Trump loses the popular vote (again) and is installed by the electoral college (again), but that the senate flips to democratic control, while retaining the House. Now, the Dems don't want him in office so they vote to impeach him. Previously, the White House resisted efforts to acquire documents and witnesses, so the evidence was arguably shaky, but they impeached him anyway. Once before the senate for trial, the Dems were stymied in their attempts to get more evidence by a vote to block additional witnesses. But, if the Dems were in control . . . couldn't they just vote against hearing any witnesses or admitting any other evidence before voting to remove? It seems ridiculous to hold a trial with no witnesses or evidence, but now it's been done. Wouldn't the events of this January set a legal framework for arguing, "if you can block damning evidence, then we can block exculpatory evidence"? If the senate can vote to retain a president after "evidence-less" proceedings, can't they vote to remove one? (Especially the same one?)

At first blush, this seems horrible to me. But, when I think about it . . . parliamentary governments may make a vote of "no confidence" in an executive. While the explicit mechanism doesn't exist in the same form in the U.S., wouldn't this effectively function in the same way? It also has the additional benefit of making an end run around the electoral college. All the reps and senators in congress are voted in by the people, not the electoral college (or a congressional analog). This makes governance more democratic (political concept not the party).

What do y'all think?
  #2  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:27 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,560
I think that if the United States existed only of the House, Senate, SCOTUS and the Executive Branch then playing high stakes poker when it comes to politics would be an interesting experiment to try out...but it doesn't, does it?
By the way, Republicans (and a small handful of Democrats) voted they way they did out of a fear of what would happen to them if they opposed Trump. Please explain why they would go the opposite direction and vote against him? There is no line in the sand when it comes to Trump any more...and I doubt there ever really was.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 02-09-2020 at 08:31 PM.
  #3  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:38 PM
Fretful Porpentine is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,669
I don't think there's a realistic scenario where the Democrats get 67 Senate seats, which is what it takes to impeach and remove. For that matter, it's hard to see a realistic scenario where the Democrats take control of the Senate while losing the presidency in 2020 (although I suppose it might happen in the 2022 midterms). They would need a net gain of four seats to do that with a Republican vice-president, and at least two of those would have to be in states that voted for Trump in 2016; it seems really unlikely that this could happen without also flipping several states at the presidential level.

OTOH, one reasonably plausible silver-lining scenario is that people get as annoyed at their Republican senators for voting for acquittal as they are with Trump, enabling Democrats to flip the Senate and the presidency in 2020. Cory Gardner was probably doomed anyway, but Collins and McSally might have taken some real damage.
__________________
Live merrily, and trust to good verses.
-- Robert Herrick
  #4  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:06 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
I don't think there's a realistic scenario where the Democrats get 67 Senate seats, which is what it takes to impeach and remove.
Hypothetically, let's say the Democrats take half of the Class 2 Senate seats currently held by Republicans (already, we're in the magical land of Oz, but whatever), raising their total to 57 (including the 2 independents). Could enough of the 43 remaining Republicans (especially the Class 3 ones) be sufficiently cowed by this national rejection that if Trump (assuming he gets re-elected) gets re-impeached, they might decide to go along with it, lest they too get bounced in 2022?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #5  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:51 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Hypothetically, let's say the Democrats take half of the Class 2 Senate seats currently held by Republicans (already, we're in the magical land of Oz, but whatever), raising their total to 57 (including the 2 independents). Could enough of the 43 remaining Republicans (especially the Class 3 ones) be sufficiently cowed by this national rejection that if Trump (assuming he gets re-elected) gets re-impeached, they might decide to go along with it, lest they too get bounced in 2022?
Yeah...it is a stretch dems will get control of the senate in 2020. It is a near impossibility they would get 67% of the senate.

But, pretending that did happen, I think it would be very worrisome, politically, to overturn an election so soon after an election.

I am fine with impeachment in principle as a check and balance but I am not sure it is something to be done immediately following an election. Not that Trump does not deserve it (he certainly does) but rather as a political calculation.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #6  
Old 02-11-2020, 12:54 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Yeah...it is a stretch dems will get control of the senate in 2020. It is a near impossibility they would get 67% of the senate.
I'm not speculating that the Democrats take 67 Senate seats, but that the Class 2 Senate Republicans take enough of a hit (combined with Trump just barely winning the electoral college) that the Class 3 Senators see that continuing to defend him will sink them in 2022, hence they abandon him if House Democrats start another impeachment process.

I have no expectation whatsoever that any Republican Senator has any loyalty to Trump personally.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.

Last edited by Bryan Ekers; 02-11-2020 at 12:55 AM.
  #7  
Old 02-11-2020, 01:00 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,134
The closest thing to a silver lining is that it has woken a lot of people up to how deeply dysfunctional tens of millions of Americans are, how much actual work we still need to do as a country and that we desperately need an organized, grassroots progressive movement.

Thats about the only silver lining I can think of.

That and the fact that a more competent autocrat would get more done. Thank god Trump is an idiot.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #8  
Old 02-09-2020, 08:58 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,537
There is no silver lining. House Democrats handed an authoritarian world leader a victory.

You could say, that if Trump hadn't been impeached, more progressive Americans would now be planning to vote for the Green Party. So maybe it would have been even worse if Pelosi blocked impeachment. But it's still all bad.
  #9  
Old 02-09-2020, 09:04 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,560
The Democrats tried to do the best they could with the rules that were in place...and the Republicans basically said "Fuck The Rules!" because of their LOP and LOS(Love of Power and Lack of Spine).
  #10  
Old 02-09-2020, 09:36 PM
Sitnam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The Democrats tried to do the best they could with the rules that were in place...and the Republicans basically said "Fuck The Rules!" because of their LOP and LOS(Love of Power and Lack of Spine).
Yeah, time will pass and things will calm down. Remember when nearly half the nation thought Sarah Palin was fit to be a national leader?

Nancy knew this wasn’t going to result in Trump’s removal. Her plan was to tie all of the GOP to Trump, because sure a sugar his legacy will not be a shiny one and they all want to stay in power for decades.

Shout out to Romney, though. A single voice of integrity, which I hope haunts the rest.
  #11  
Old 02-09-2020, 09:58 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
Yeah, time will pass and things will calm down. Remember when nearly half the nation thought Sarah Palin was fit to be a national leader?

Nancy knew this wasn’t going to result in Trump’s removal. Her plan was to tie all of the GOP to Trump, because sure a sugar his legacy will not be a shiny one and they all want to stay in power for decades.

Shout out to Romney, though. A single voice of integrity, which I hope haunts the rest.
I think you are vastly overestimating the effect Trump's impeachment will have on Republican voters. In fact, now that he has shown them that there is nothing that will happen to them if they take the low road, I predict that even more of them will vote for him.
  #12  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:15 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,696
The "win" was inevitable. Moscow Mitch loudly guaranteed it. No silver linings to be found here, sorry. Speaker Pelosi's strategy indeed seems to firmly tie all GOPs to this POTUS who'll they keep defending even as more evidence emerges. Hopefully this will matter in November, if state of emergency / martial law isn't imposed first.

What, tyranny? I'm waiting for, "You're paranoid! That can't happen here!" Hope you're right. If not, I'll see ya in the concentration camp protective detention facility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitnam View Post
Shout out to Romney, though. A single voice of integrity, which I hope haunts the rest.
He had nothing to lose but at least is likely not a foreign asset, unlike the rest of the GOP political cartel.
  #13  
Old 02-10-2020, 05:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,880
The Democrats handed Trump a big victory. Many or most of them understood that that's what they were doing, but felt compelled to impeach by their oath of office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The Democrats tried to do the best they could with the rules that were in place...and the Republicans basically said "Fuck The Rules!" because of their LOP and LOS(Love of Power and Lack of Spine).
I do NOT think the Dems did the best they could have. They should have set their goals lower (just a House censure resolution? or hearings on corruption with no rush to impeach) or higher (more charges, wait for witnesses).

They had subpoenaed witnesses who refused to appear. One TV lawyer said it would take TWO years to compel testimony (after haggling the first refusal all the way to Scotus, witnesses would have refused on other grounds, with delay of still another year). After TWO YEARS some of the witnesses, finally sat in the witness seat, would have just pled Fifth Amendment anyway.

(I do NOT understand the two-year delay. When there's a political emergency for GOP — (Quick! Stop Florida from counting its votes, or Quick! Get our new gerrymander approved) — the Roberts-Kavanaugh team has no problem speeding up its docket. But for minor mundane emergencies — like a traitorous President giving away secrets to our enemies — no expedition is possible?)

Trump has committed lots and lots of crimes. The House should have taken its time to put them on display. Rushing out with a single crime, knowing it would be squished by Senate, was insane. And after this "acquittal" any further House investigations into Trump's crimes will be denounced.
  #14  
Old 02-10-2020, 07:36 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,075
I don't get all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. We all knew the outcome was inevitable, but the House did the right thing. Now the Republicans (other than Romney) have votes on record for being perfectly fine with Don The Con's criminal behavior. They are married to this asshole come hell or high water. The Senate is now more in play than ever.

Name one state that Hillary won that the Dem nominee in 2020 will not. I don't think there are any. But with no Hillary and no Jill Stein on the ballot, I can easily see the Dems taking back WI and MI and PA. AZ is now in play, FL is not a foregone conclusion. Instead of throwing in the towel and whining "Gee, woe is us! One state bought a phone app that didn't work! We can't possibly win now!" let's remember the orangeanus has nearly nine months left to keep pissing people off.
  #15  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:54 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Speaker Pelosi's strategy indeed seems to firmly tie all GOPs to this POTUS who'll they keep defending even as more evidence emerges. Hopefully this will matter in November
I agree. This was the most realistic outcome for the impeachment. The Republicans have now tied themselves to Trump; they can pretend he's an individual aberration in an otherwise good organization.

Hopefully that means the voters will get rid of Trump and a lot of other Republicans in November. The Democrats will take over and start fixing the country. The Republicans will have a timeout and can think about the consequences for the mistakes they've made.
  #16  
Old 02-10-2020, 09:05 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
So, predictably Trumo got off on a (nearly) party-line vote. It did raise some eyebrows that the Senate opted to not hear additional witnesses or admit additional documentary evidence. Obviously, POTUS faces no legal consequences for the charges and this would seem to embolden him. However, couldn't it be that this has greatly weakened the presidency? Even his next term, if it comes to that?

Let's say, hypothetically that Trump loses the popular vote (again) and is installed by the electoral college (again), but that the senate flips to democratic control, while retaining the House. Now, the Dems don't want him in office so they vote to impeach him. Previously, the White House resisted efforts to acquire documents and witnesses, so the evidence was arguably shaky, but they impeached him anyway. Once before the senate for trial, the Dems were stymied in their attempts to get more evidence by a vote to block additional witnesses. But, if the Dems were in control . . . couldn't they just vote against hearing any witnesses or admitting any other evidence before voting to remove? It seems ridiculous to hold a trial with no witnesses or evidence, but now it's been done. Wouldn't the events of this January set a legal framework for arguing, "if you can block damning evidence, then we can block exculpatory evidence"? If the senate can vote to retain a president after "evidence-less" proceedings, can't they vote to remove one? (Especially the same one?)
On a practical level, the chances of the Dems getting control of the Senate are slim. The chances of them getting a 67-seat majority, keeping a majority in the House, but losing the White House, are indistinguishable from zero.

On a legal level, nothing has changed. A two-thirds majority in the Senate can remove a President based on any evidence, or no evidence. They don't have to call witnesses, any more than they had to in the previous trial.

So, Trump is elected, he takes office on Jan. 20, on Jan.21 the House votes to impeach, they send over the articles to the Senate, the Senate sets up the trial, the first day of the trial the Senate Majority Leader calls for an immediate vote, 67 Ayes later Trump is out on his ear. (Pence is then President so the whole process would have to be repeated until it's President Pelosi, but "high crimes and misdemeanors" means whatever Congress wants it to mean, so they can do that if they want as well.)

The Presidency isn't any weaker or stronger than it ever was - it is still weaker than two-thirds of the Senate and a majority of the House.

Think of it the other way around - Sanders or Biden or Buttigieg is elected President, but the House flips back and the Senate is two-thirds Republican. Also highly unlikely, but a Democratic President is no better or worse off than Trump would be in your scenario.

Regards,
Shodan
  #17  
Old 02-10-2020, 10:34 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think you are vastly overestimating the effect Trump's impeachment will have on Republican voters. In fact, now that he has shown them that there is nothing that will happen to them if they take the low road, I predict that even more of them will vote for him.

If your prediction is true, then there was never anything the Democrats could have done that would have prevented a Trump win in the next election. If losing the impeachment vote in the Senate weakens their position, what does just rolling over and letting Trump get away without even being subject to that vote do to them? What would swing voters be thinking in November, when Dems are all running around complaining about all the shit Trump has pulled? "If he's so bad, why did you guys do literally nothing to stop him?"

At the end of the day, a democracy only works as well as the voters let it work. If enough US voters can't see the truth of Trump, then you're doomed.
__________________
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
  #18  
Old 02-10-2020, 12:41 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,778
The only silver lining to Trump's win is that Pence isn't president. While Trump panders to the religious right, he doesn't believe all their stuff. Pence would really like a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.
  #19  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:32 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
I appreciate the responses, but none of them are answers to my question. While very unlikely that the Dems would have a big enough majority to have the votes in the near future and also unlikely that there would be political will to remove a POTUS. But, if these were given, could the house impeach a president then senate remove without calling witnesses or documents?

The whole point of this is basically could the system subvert the electoral college and put citizens back in charge of who can be president? If we're not allowed to choose the POTUS, with enough of a mandate from the public (via choosing our senators/reps) we can at least throw out whoever the EC foists upon us. (I am aware that this would require a greater majority of the nation be dem [or whatever party] than exists now. A closely divided public wouldn't work).
  #20  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:10 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
The whole point of this is basically could the system subvert the electoral college and put citizens back in charge of who can be president? If we're not allowed to choose the POTUS, with enough of a mandate from the public (via choosing our senators/reps) we can at least throw out whoever the EC foists upon us.
In exchange for the VP candidate the EC foisted on us?

Or does this hypothetical assume the Republican fantasy version of impeachment that actually does "overturn the results of the last election"?
  #21  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:13 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
I appreciate the responses, but none of them are answers to my question. While very unlikely that the Dems would have a big enough majority to have the votes in the near future and also unlikely that there would be political will to remove a POTUS. But, if these were given, could the house impeach a president then senate remove without calling witnesses or documents?
Yes. I am sorry if that wasn't clear.

Regards,
Shodan
  #22  
Old 02-10-2020, 04:17 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
There is an argument to be made that, for practical reasons, the US government may be moving towards something like a Parliamentary system. Bipartisanship, when politics have become a national sport, is verboten and governance becomes impossible. The only solution, from a practical standpoint is to abuse your majority and enact policy without anything like broad agreement.

If this was a purposeful effort and included changes to the Constitution, I wouldn't care too much.

As it is, we're effectively just ignoring the Constitution. That sets a horrible precedent and has effectively left either the President the puppet of Congress or made him completely immune to them.

Parliamentary systems were designed to be Parliament systems. Ours was not. The rules don't work right for it to work well.

I also don't think that a Parliamentary system is as good as a well-designed Presidential system. It's better to correct the holes in our system than to go Parliamentary.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 02-10-2020 at 04:18 PM.
  #23  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:00 PM
Mnemnosyne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
I appreciate the responses, but none of them are answers to my question. While very unlikely that the Dems would have a big enough majority to have the votes in the near future and also unlikely that there would be political will to remove a POTUS. But, if these were given, could the house impeach a president then senate remove without calling witnesses or documents?

The whole point of this is basically could the system subvert the electoral college and put citizens back in charge of who can be president? If we're not allowed to choose the POTUS, with enough of a mandate from the public (via choosing our senators/reps) we can at least throw out whoever the EC foists upon us. (I am aware that this would require a greater majority of the nation be dem [or whatever party] than exists now. A closely divided public wouldn't work).
Yes, they could, but there's no circumstance in a Presidential election year where that could plausibly happen, and almost no circumstance even in the midterms when that could happen. In a Presidential election year, it is utterly implausible that the voters would manage to drive one party to a 67 seat majority in the Senate while the Electoral College puts the other party in the Presidency. The EC and the Senate are very similar, setting up an 'arbitrary geographical areas, not people' bias in their outcomes; if the Senate was elected by national popular vote, while the Electoral College remained as it is, the question might actually make a good deal of sense, but it's actually more likely that we'll change the EC than the Senate at this point, and even the EC is pretty damn unlikely to be changed.

But let's take a sliiightly more plausible scenario; a midterm year. Keeping in mind that in the last sixty years, there has NEVER been a senate supermajority that is not of the same party as the President, we can assume that the absolute upper limit of opposing party members in the Senate is 59. That means that in order for this to happen in a midterm year, the party doing it must turn at least 8 seats in the Senate while maintaining all of their current seats. More likely, the senate will be closer to a tie or even have a strong majority of the other party, meaning they would need to gain 17+ seats, out of the 33 that are up for re-election in the midterm year. In order for this to even be possible, the President's party must control 17+ of the seats up for re-election, and the opposing party must successfully retain all of their seats and capture enough to put them over that 67 mark.

So, yeah, it's...possible...but so vanishingly unlikely that it's never going to happen. In any such scenario, the President's party would simply vote against him in a bipartisan impeachment, because it would be obvious that they would lose that badly if it actually came to that scenario. After all, something would have happened in those two years to so radically change the opinion of the electorate as to want to kick the President out and give the opposing party a supermajority to do it if necessary. Any such event would be obvious to the President's party, and they would turn against him to attempt to save themselves before it even came to that.

If you're asking 'according to the rules, is it possible?' then, yeah, sure. Such a supermajority could kick the president out for any reason, because there's no constitutional limit on exactly what represents 'high crimes and misdemeanors' so the House can impeach and the Senate can convict over anything.
  #24  
Old 02-10-2020, 04:48 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
I am not a lawyer, but for a layperson I have a pretty good understanding of the political and legal system of the U.S.
Quote:
Let's say, hypothetically that Trump loses the popular vote (again) and is installed by the electoral college (again), but that the senate flips to democratic control, while retaining the House.
What does the popular vote have to do with U.S. Presidential elections?
  #25  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:20 PM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What does the popular vote have to do with U.S. Presidential elections?
Nothing. Which, if one is a person espousing democratic ideals, is problematic.
  #26  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:31 PM
SmartAlecCat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,152
Taking 67 seats in the Senate is virtually impossible by itself, but to have it happen in the same election with Trump winning is simply incompatible. The circumstances that would allow one thing to happen would preclude the other.
  #27  
Old 02-12-2020, 12:52 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,696
The silver lining so far is that Tramp has not yet feared that evidence of his treasons will be revealed and so hasn't declared martial law and had dissidents interred. Stay tuned.
  #28  
Old 02-12-2020, 05:58 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,191
It would show the incompetency of the democratic party in being able to beat him.

I mean seriously people got very mad when Bush was elected the 2nd time but in reality you can blame the democrats for finding nobody better than John Kerry even though nobody really liked him plus they made fools of themselves in the primaries.
  #29  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:46 PM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The silver lining so far is that Tramp has not yet feared that evidence of his treasons will be revealed and so hasn't declared martial law and had dissidents interred. Stay tuned.
I will. And perhaps you will remember to revisit this post after the election.
  #30  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:36 PM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
So, predictably Trump got off on a (nearly) party-line vote.
What do y'all think?
You are missing the part where Trump got ON the hook on a party-line vote, LOL.

For this long-time observer of the US public, easily the most comically naive political move in memory.

Without bi-partisan support for a clearly-violated high crime, every impeachment will fail to result in removal of a sitting President--and by design of the framers: They wanted a government by election, and not parliamentary support at-the-moment.

An impeachment based on anything but a high crime becomes a judgment call. If there is broad bipartisan agreement about such a judgment, you might have a shot at removing a President involuntarily. If not; you won't find 67 agreeing Senators.

At issue is not whether an asshole President needs to be stoned, but whether those casting the stones would themselves survive a similar litmus test. On average, we want our leaders to abuse their privileges when it aligns with our goals, and to be held accountable when such an abuse does not. We are not very interested in whether or not they fudged their privilege. We don't even care if our leaders pay much attention to laws if we think those laws are unimportant in a particular instance.

Many Democrats fussing about how horrible or illegal it is to put the squeeze on a foreign leader using publicly-assigned foreign aid as a leverage for personal gain seem to want that particular line to be toed; the same Democrats are willing to look the other way if whole cities provide sanctuary for "undocumented" aliens illegally in the country, because the don't give immigration law the same weight as the laws under which they want the President removed...

When an impeachment decision is sharply split along party lines, the message is that the issue at hand is a judgment call, be it the around whether a criminal violation reached the level of a "high crime," or whether a misdemeanor was so egregious that circumvention of the next election is warranted. And the ONLY thing that would lend weight to a judgment call is broad bilateral support. Without that, Democrats are in the position of suggesting that they are unilaterally pure and Republicans are unilaterally evil.

While such a suggestion might play well for the devout, it is so unlikely to be true for everyone else that a party-line vote to impeach has the opposite effect of what it intended. Instead of proving that Trump is evil, it proved that Democrats--and only Democrats--want to get rid of Trump without the electorate weighing in as a whole. It made the case for this being a pure judgment call instead of something more black and white. Once it's a judgment call along party lines, any real case against Trump dissolves in the mist of political shenanigans.

The default (and accurate, I suspect) view is that no politician is without sin. In the case of impeachment, it doesn't mean that no-one gets to throw stones. But if only one side throws the stones, it won't look like the stoning was deserved. It will look like a mob who indulged themselves.

That is going to mobilize Trump's base to a much greater degree than it will mobilized the Democrat's base. In this country the winner for a given state is the one who turns out the most votes. This is subtly different than the polls, which can only measure the temperature of those intending to vote.

Last edited by Chief Pedant; 02-13-2020 at 12:40 PM.
  #31  
Old 02-13-2020, 02:14 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
the same Democrats are willing to look the other way if whole cities provide sanctuary for "undocumented" aliens illegally in the country, because the don't give immigration law the same weight as the laws under which they want the President removed...
This is a Trumpian (and thus factually false) view of the "sanctuary city" issue. In fact, these cities aren't violating federal laws, they're just putting local priorities (like solving and preventing violent crime) ahead of federal priorities (like finding undocumented immigrants). It's very important for local police and officials to maintain good relations with all the different demographic groups of their populations, because they will need their cooperation to solve and prevent crimes. If some group in the city is deathly afraid that going to the police could result in their deportation, then they'll be much less likely to report rapes and other crimes (or otherwise cooperate with investigations).

Local police shouldn't be doing the jobs of federal officials. The requirements of the job, and their goals, conflict.
  #32  
Old 02-13-2020, 02:49 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 306
A silver lining? Well, an asteroid hasn't struck earth yet.
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #33  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:11 PM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is a Trumpian (and thus factually false) view of the "sanctuary city" issue. In fact, these cities aren't violating federal laws, they're just putting local priorities (like solving and preventing violent crime) ahead of federal priorities (like finding undocumented immigrants). It's very important for local police and officials to maintain good relations with all the different demographic groups of their populations, because they will need their cooperation to solve and prevent crimes. If some group in the city is deathly afraid that going to the police could result in their deportation, then they'll be much less likely to report rapes and other crimes (or otherwise cooperate with investigations).

Local police shouldn't be doing the jobs of federal officials. The requirements of the job, and their goals, conflict.
LOL.
The notion that sanctuary cities (and many other parallel pro-loose-border entities) don't take an aggressive stance wrt protecting illegal aliens from immigration laws and policies they consider inappropriate is risible.

But my general point is that each of us (and thank you for this example using your own contortion here) finds good reason to defend violations of laws and/or less formal constraints or conventions, if such violations fit our personal paradigms.

The actual behavior of Trump strong-arming Ukraine for his personal gain resonates only with those who already despise him. The rest of the country doesn't give a flying rat's ass because it is not a severe enough violation of a law anyone cares enough about. Beyond that, I think the average sentiment of those who do not already loathe Trump is that most elected leaders indulge themselves in similar distortions of decency, and that for Democrats to pursue it as if they themselves were somehow purer is a farce. Trump for them might be far more blatant, but not far more naughty.

We'll see in November if the Democrat's gamble paid off. What I personally think is that their partisan impeachment mobilized the far left and the pro-Trumpers. Mobilizing the pro-Trumpers won't hurt the Republicans. Mobilizing the far left will hurt the Democrats. Some blue-collar guy in a swing state who's worked all his life is not that interested in giving everyone free stuff, or losing his retirement healthcare plan to a one-size-fits-all. The far left scares him. OTOH, his pension fund has never been sounder given the current stock market.
  #34  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:31 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
LOL.
The notion that sanctuary cities (and many other parallel pro-loose-border entities) don't take an aggressive stance wrt protecting illegal aliens from immigration laws and policies they consider inappropriate is risible.

But my general point is that each of us (and thank you for this example using your own contortion here) finds good reason to defend violations of laws and/or less formal constraints or conventions, if such violations fit our personal paradigms.

The actual behavior of Trump strong-arming Ukraine for his personal gain resonates only with those who already despise him. The rest of the country doesn't give a flying rat's ass because it is not a severe enough violation of a law anyone cares enough about. Beyond that, I think the average sentiment of those who do not already loathe Trump is that most elected leaders indulge themselves in similar distortions of decency, and that for Democrats to pursue it as if they themselves were somehow purer is a farce. Trump for them might be far more blatant, but not far more naughty.

We'll see in November if the Democrat's gamble paid off. What I personally think is that their partisan impeachment mobilized the far left and the pro-Trumpers. Mobilizing the pro-Trumpers won't hurt the Republicans. Mobilizing the far left will hurt the Democrats. Some blue-collar guy in a swing state who's worked all his life is not that interested in giving everyone free stuff, or losing his retirement healthcare plan to a one-size-fits-all. The far left scares him. OTOH, his pension fund has never been sounder given the current stock market.
The bold is an indictment of those who excuse this behavior, not those who condemn. And your posts have been classic examples of false equivalency.
  #35  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:38 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
... easily the most comically naive political move in memory.
Yes. The only silver lining is for Trump.

Pelosi, supposedly so savvy, managed to make it meaningfully more likely that we get another dose of the Orange Man.
  #36  
Old 02-13-2020, 04:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
LOL.

The notion that sanctuary cities (and many other parallel pro-loose-border entities) don't take an aggressive stance wrt protecting illegal aliens from immigration laws and policies they consider inappropriate is risible.



But my general point is that each of us (and thank you for this example using your own contortion here) finds good reason to defend violations of laws and/or less formal constraints or conventions, if such violations fit our personal paradigms.



The actual behavior of Trump strong-arming Ukraine for his personal gain resonates only with those who already despise him. The rest of the country doesn't give a flying rat's ass because it is not a severe enough violation of a law anyone cares enough about. Beyond that, I think the average sentiment of those who do not already loathe Trump is that most elected leaders indulge themselves in similar distortions of decency, and that for Democrats to pursue it as if they themselves were somehow purer is a farce. Trump for them might be far more blatant, but not far more naughty.



We'll see in November if the Democrat's gamble paid off. What I personally think is that their partisan impeachment mobilized the far left and the pro-Trumpers. Mobilizing the pro-Trumpers won't hurt the Republicans. Mobilizing the far left will hurt the Democrats. Some blue-collar guy in a swing state who's worked all his life is not that interested in giving everyone free stuff, or losing his retirement healthcare plan to a one-size-fits-all. The far left scares him. OTOH, his pension fund has never been sounder given the current stock market.
Apparently you get your information about sanctuary cities from Lou Dobbs and other mostly false Trumpian sources, because in the real world, sanctuary policies are about prioritizing fighting local crime and maintaining positive community relations over doing the federal government's job.

As to your predictions about the election, they're worth about as much as any random uncited assertion on the internet about an election several months away - nothing. Any prediction about the general election this early is a wild guess, period.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #37  
Old 02-13-2020, 07:34 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Apparently you get your information about sanctuary cities from Lou Dobbs and other mostly false Trumpian sources, because in the real world, sanctuary policies are about prioritizing fighting local crime and maintaining positive community relations over doing the federal government's job.
Yeah, I'm sure that these sanctuary city leaders are all pro-Trump firebrands who want to deport every single illegal alien, yet dammit, the budget just isn't there for that so we have to leave it to the feds to do it and keep writing jaywalking tickets.

You don't seriously believe that do you? These policies are enacted because of a political disagreement with current immigration law. From my understanding, all the feds ask them to do is honor an ICE detainer so the feds can come pick them up. Even though every city and state honors all other detainers from other states and federal detainers on all other laws, they refuse to honor ICE detainers because of budget reasons?

"Maintaining positive community relations"? Could you explain how this means anything other than we don't like immigration laws and we are representing a minority of our citizens who also don't like the immigration laws?

But Chief Pendant's point is apt and it wasn't picking on either side. When a politician whom you agree with kicks the ball back in the fairway, you have an attitude of everyone does it, why the big deal, so what, etc. When a politician with whom you disagree does the same thing, then it is the coming of the Antichrist and the worst thing any human being could possibly do.
  #38  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:28 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yeah, I'm sure that these sanctuary city leaders are all pro-Trump firebrands who want to deport every single illegal alien, yet dammit, the budget just isn't there for that so we have to leave it to the feds to do it and keep writing jaywalking tickets.

You don't seriously believe that do you? These policies are enacted because of a political disagreement with current immigration law. From my understanding, all the feds ask them to do is honor an ICE detainer so the feds can come pick them up. Even though every city and state honors all other detainers from other states and federal detainers on all other laws, they refuse to honor ICE detainers because of budget reasons?
Hey, you know what word didn't appear once in iiandyiiii's post? "Budget."
  #39  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:00 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,432
But 'prioritize' did.
  #40  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:21 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
But 'prioritize' did.
And?
  #41  
Old 02-13-2020, 07:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yeah, I'm sure that these sanctuary city leaders are all pro-Trump firebrands who want to deport every single illegal alien, yet dammit, the budget just isn't there for that so we have to leave it to the feds to do it and keep writing jaywalking tickets.



You don't seriously believe that do you? These policies are enacted because of a political disagreement with current immigration law. From my understanding, all the feds ask them to do is honor an ICE detainer so the feds can come pick them up. Even though every city and state honors all other detainers from other states and federal detainers on all other laws, they refuse to honor ICE detainers because of budget reasons?



"Maintaining positive community relations"? Could you explain how this means anything other than we don't like immigration laws and we are representing a minority of our citizens who also don't like the immigration laws?



But Chief Pendant's point is apt and it wasn't picking on either side. When a politician whom you agree with kicks the ball back in the fairway, you have an attitude of everyone does it, why the big deal, so what, etc. When a politician with whom you disagree does the same thing, then it is the coming of the Antichrist and the worst thing any human being could possibly do.
It's very simple. Sometimes undocumented immigrants are raped. Sometimes undocumented immigrants witness crime. Sometimes they have other information useful to solve crimes. If those undocumented immigrants are afraid the local police will deport them, they are much less likely to report crimes like rape and cooperate with investigations, and thus rapists and other criminals are more likely to get away to rape again. So sanctuary cities' leaders have decided that preventing rape and other crimes, and solving rapes and other crimes, is more important than helping the federal government deport people.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think preventing and solving rapes are more important than assisting the feds in deporting people.

Maybe for you, it's okay when your side does it but not for the other side. Maybe for CP too. But that's not the case for everyone. Some folks really do value some things more than partisanship, hard as it may be to understand.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-13-2020 at 07:50 PM.
  #42  
Old 02-13-2020, 07:59 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's very simple. Sometimes undocumented immigrants are raped. Sometimes undocumented immigrants witness crime. Sometimes they have other information useful to solve crimes. If those undocumented immigrants are afraid the local police will deport them, they are much less likely to report crimes like rape and cooperate with investigations, and thus rapists and other criminals are more likely to get away to rape again. So sanctuary cities' leaders have decided that preventing rape and other crimes, and solving rapes and other crimes, is more important than helping the federal government deport people.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think preventing and solving rapes are more important than assisting the feds in deporting people.

Maybe for you, it's okay when your side does it but not for the other side. Maybe for CP too. But that's not the case for everyone. Some folks really do value some things more than partisanship, hard as it may be to understand.
And you are saying that they come to that position while being neutral or pro-Trump on the immigration issue? That they just decide that notwithstanding their desire to see these illegal immigrants deported, they simply believe that the small dent in these other crimes provided by illegal immigrant witnesses are more valuable?

Is it just happenstance that all sanctuary cities are far left? Is it your position that conservative areas of the country are happy to be awash in these crimes as long as it means deporting illegals?

What other crimes should we ignore so that the criminals can feel safe in coming forward to be witnesses for other crimes? How does ignoring ICE detention requests stop these witnesses from reporting crimes?
  #43  
Old 02-13-2020, 08:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
And you are saying that they come to that position while being neutral or pro-Trump on the immigration issue? That they just decide that notwithstanding their desire to see these illegal immigrants deported, they simply believe that the small dent in these other crimes provided by illegal immigrant witnesses are more valuable?



Is it just happenstance that all sanctuary cities are far left? Is it your position that conservative areas of the country are happy to be awash in these crimes as long as it means deporting illegals?



What other crimes should we ignore so that the criminals can feel safe in coming forward to be witnesses for other crimes? How does ignoring ICE detention requests stop these witnesses from reporting crimes?
Sanctuary policies have been around a lot longer than Trump. If your point is that liberals like me generally value preventing rape as more important than deporting mostly non violent people, then I'll certainly admit to that. Maybe conservatives feel differently. Not sure how this helps your argument, though, whatever it is.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #44  
Old 02-13-2020, 09:45 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
... liberals like me generally value preventing rape as more important than deporting mostly non violent people ...
You really believe that an important effect of sanctuary policies has been to lower rates of sexual assault in cities that have adopted them?
  #45  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:44 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
You really believe that an important effect of sanctuary policies has been to lower rates of sexual assault in cities that have adopted them?
Shout out to an old classic, yo!:

Quote:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," he said then. "They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Trump has been particularly vocal in opposing so-called "sanctuary city" policies, in which some jurisdictions have refused to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. On Wednesday, he highlighted California cities who do cooperate, inviting mayors and sheriffs opposed to the state's predominant policy.

"Each of you has bravely resisted California's deadly and unconstitutional sanctuary state law," Trump told them.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #46  
Old 02-16-2020, 10:12 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Shout out to an old classic ...
Not seeing any relevance to the present discussion.
  #47  
Old 02-15-2020, 12:19 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
You really believe that an important effect of sanctuary policies has been to lower rates of sexual assault in cities that have adopted them?
Perhaps, How many do you require for it to be a good thing?
  #48  
Old 02-16-2020, 10:09 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,432
Would be interested to see evidence that sanctuary policies have resulted in reduced rates of sexual assault. My sense would be that such a connection is unlikely.
  #49  
Old 02-16-2020, 10:21 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Would be interested to see evidence that sanctuary policies have resulted in reduced rates of sexual assault. My sense would be that such a connection is unlikely.
https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...d-the-economy/
Quote:
Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Crime is defined here as the total number of violent crimes—murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults—and property crimes—burglaries, larceny, motor vehicle thefts, and arsons—per 10,000 people. The data indicate that crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties in large central metro counties, small metro counties, micropolitan counties, and noncore, rural counties. Large central metro counties show the most pronounced difference. Large central metro sanctuary counties have 65.4 crimes fewer per 10,000 people than large central metro nonsanctuary counties.

Perhaps more importantly, the results of the CEM analysis show that crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties when statistically matching and then controlling for population characteristics, including total population and the foreign-born percentage of the population. The results of the CEM analysis show that there are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties—a result that is highly statistically significant.
BTW, got that via NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi...ties-are-safer . No wonder Trump and henchmen want to get rid of them too.
  #50  
Old 02-20-2020, 07:33 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,321
I just popped into this thread to propose one possible silver lining for Trump's election.

First we must acknowledge that Trump is as much a symptom as he is a disease. The power hungriness and rejection of legislative norms of the Republican party exists whether or not Trump is president. The post truth partisan propaganda of the right wing media exists whether or not Trump is president, and the xenophobic white identity reactionary portion of out populace who listen the that media exists whether or not Trump was president.

Fortunately for our Democracy Trump is too incompetent to fully make use of all of this. He was just lucky enough to be the first stumble into realization that the old rules no longer apply, that the truth is irrelevant and so long as you can find 34 senators who are more loyal to you than to the country, the president has unlimited power. Suppose rather than Trump who first realized this, it was someone who actually had the intelligence and political skills to wield that power effectively. Who wouldn't tweet their corruption out in the open for all the world to see, would provide a semblance of competence, and would know enough not to bribe a foreign leader on a phone call that others could hear.

Imagine if instead of Trump it was Nixon, or Joe McCarthy, or J Edgar Hoover who was in charge right now.

At least with Trump we have a chance to see how bad things have gotten, and take action against it before its too late.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 02-20-2020 at 07:35 PM.
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 06:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017