Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6851  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:29 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You scared me there, John. I thought by "hit" you meant assassination, what with the U.S. recently going around assassinating people and all. Then I read "Yovanovitch" and assumed you meant "fired". Phew! That's old news.

Then I read your second link.

I reserve the right to judge the intent of those text messages at a later date.

~Max
I admit that it's a reach to decisively say what the specifics were, but you can get a private eye to follow someone here in the United States. So I would expect that they are talking about something more nefarious than stalking if the one guy is astonished about what can be arranged in Ukraine.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-14-2020 at 11:30 PM.
  #6852  
Old 01-14-2020, 11:42 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I'm not exactly sure what the Clinton rules were but, suspecting that the Republicans held the majority in the Senate at the time, expectation would be that they allow for the majority to decide most things.

I suspect that there are worse rulesets that could have been adopted but I doubt that it's a wonderfully friendly to the minority.

On the other hand, it's probably quite aggressive towards the executive branch should the majority vote that they want something from the executive branch. You don't need all that many defectors for a majority on the left.
A majority should decide most things in any representative body. That's not a sneaky Republican thing.

Also the Clinton rules passed 100-0.
  #6853  
Old 01-15-2020, 12:11 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
A majority should decide most things in any representative body. That's not a sneaky Republican thing.

Also the Clinton rules passed 100-0.
If you read me to say that there's something sneaky, then that had little to do with the words that I wrote. As said, there are probably worse rulesets that could have been passed. I expect that we got the Clinton rules because Collins, Romney, etc. were able to force something that they felt was sufficient onto McConnell.

And while, yes, a majority should decide most things in a representative body, that's only if the representatives are empowered to perform their job honestly and in good faith. If two thirds of them were voting with a gun to the back of their heads, as an extreme example, then, clearly, the results of a vote would not be meaningful. The theoretical underpinnings of the structure of our government actually matter as more than words. Following the words studiously in some situation where it was clear that the actual intent of the founders was being flagrantly ignored is just ceremonial Consitutionalism not actual Constitutionalism. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the underlying philosophy you want to adhere to. There's more to it than "majority rules". Preventing the majority from, simply, ruling the day was in fact one of the key goals of how things were structured.
  #6854  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:53 AM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,884
The Senate Rules Committee is going to limit press access to Senators during any impeachment trial.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/congres...l-press-access
  #6855  
Old 01-15-2020, 05:02 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,365
It's fine -- they'll get plenty of opportunities to ask testing questions at the white house press briefings.
  #6856  
Old 01-15-2020, 07:07 AM
phantom lamb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
It's fine -- they'll get plenty of opportunities to ask testing questions at the white house press briefings.
It's funny, but it's sad.
  #6857  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:35 AM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The Senate rules while sitting as a Court of Impeachment are different that the standing rules. A filibuster would only be allowed if the impeachment rules permit it, and that I am unsure about.
OK then, I've gone and answered my own question. Looking at Rule XXIV from the Clinton impeachment trial, I don't think there's room for a filibuster.
"XXIV. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders and decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record, subject, however, to the operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that case no Member shall speak more than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth of the Members present. The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final question, and not on the final question on each article of impeachment."
From page 10 (PDF page 15) of this document: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...C-106sdoc2.pdf

~Max
  #6858  
Old 01-15-2020, 10:41 AM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 163
The House impeachment manages will be:
Adam Schiff
Jerry Nadler
Val Demings
Zoe Lofgren
Hakeem Jeffries
Jason Crow
Sylvia Garcia
  #6859  
Old 01-15-2020, 01:57 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
If you read me to say that there's something sneaky, then that had little to do with the words that I wrote. As said, there are probably worse rulesets that could have been passed. I expect that we got the Clinton rules because Collins, Romney, etc. were able to force something that they felt was sufficient onto McConnell.

And while, yes, a majority should decide most things in a representative body, that's only if the representatives are empowered to perform their job honestly and in good faith. If two thirds of them were voting with a gun to the back of their heads, as an extreme example, then, clearly, the results of a vote would not be meaningful. The theoretical underpinnings of the structure of our government actually matter as more than words. Following the words studiously in some situation where it was clear that the actual intent of the founders was being flagrantly ignored is just ceremonial Consitutionalism not actual Constitutionalism. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the underlying philosophy you want to adhere to. There's more to it than "majority rules". Preventing the majority from, simply, ruling the day was in fact one of the key goals of how things were structured.
How do you suggest we determine how many and which Senators have a gun to their head? If you could somehow objectively determine that some Senators do, in fact, have a proverbial gun to their head, how do you suggest we proceed from there?
  #6860  
Old 01-15-2020, 02:43 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
How do you suggest we determine how many and which Senators have a gun to their head? If you could somehow objectively determine that some Senators do, in fact, have a proverbial gun to their head, how do you suggest we proceed from there?

A better question is trying to determine who actually believes that the president is actually innocent of all charges, who believes that he's guilty, but they don't care because at least he's not a radical socialist Democrat, and who believes he's guilty and do care, but are afraid to speak up for fear of being skewered on Twitter and primaried by the bully in the White House. There have been threats, both overt and implied, that any Republican who steps out of line is the enemy, human scum, even, and will be harshly dealt with.

As to what to do about it? Not much that the average person can do except call them out and exercise their voting rights.
  #6861  
Old 01-15-2020, 03:08 PM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
How do you suggest we determine how many and which Senators have a gun to their head? If you could somehow objectively determine that some Senators do, in fact, have a proverbial gun to their head, how do you suggest we proceed from there?
A secret ballot would be extremely enlightening.
  #6862  
Old 01-15-2020, 03:13 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
A better question is trying to determine who actually believes that the president is actually innocent of all charges, who believes that he's guilty, but they don't care because at least he's not a radical socialist Democrat, and who believes he's guilty and do care, but are afraid to speak up for fear of being skewered on Twitter and primaried by the bully in the White House. There have been threats, both overt and implied, that any Republican who steps out of line is the enemy, human scum, even, and will be harshly dealt with.

As to what to do about it? Not much that the average person can do except call them out and exercise their voting rights.
Sage Rat indicated majority voting to determine policy or rules is only valid if those voting are not under duress. I'm wondering how he would determine objectively who of the voting members are under duress. Absent any way to make that determination, using a majority vote is, as he noted, the way thing should be done.

Your questions are the ones I'd really, really like to get answers to, without a doubt. As would most of us, I think. Unfortunately, we never will.
  #6863  
Old 01-15-2020, 08:47 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
No problem.
The House released a tranche of documents from Lev Parnas today:
Trump supporter and Giuliani associate discussed surveilling Yovanovitch
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/polit...tch/index.html

Analysis:
https://twitter.com/AmbDana/status/1...726451200?s=19

(Embedded link in quote takes you to House files.)
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/...754577409?s=19
Note that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is apparently "fine" with this treatment of one of the ambassadors for whom he is responsible.

We need to hear from Mr. Pompeo under oath, as to why he had no problem with these shenanigans (which have direct bearing on what His Obscene Majesty was trying to get the Ukrainian President to commit to doing in aid of HOM's re-election campaign).
  #6864  
Old 01-15-2020, 09:35 PM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
HOM's re-election campaign
HOM? His Orange Majesty?

Last edited by squeegee; 01-15-2020 at 09:36 PM.
  #6865  
Old 01-15-2020, 09:39 PM
kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
The Senate is invoking the Clinton impeachment rules as their guiding star, under the "fair's fair" doctrine. So if nobody could filibuster then (and I'm sure somebody would have tried such a thing and we'd know about it), I feel safe asserting that nobody will be able to do it this time.

That said, there's been no vote on the Senate's rules for this impeachment, so we'll see what clever stuff gets added or not by the majority.
Fair is fair, and it is ludicrous to suggest that it’s independent of context. The context being that the House impeachment inquiries were NOT stonewalled by the Clinton WH.
  #6866  
Old 01-16-2020, 07:04 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
How do you suggest we determine how many and which Senators have a gun to their head?
I didn't suggest that they did. It was, fairly clearly, a hypothetical built to establish that context can be relevant.

Quote:
If you could somehow objectively determine that some Senators do, in fact, have a proverbial gun to their head, how do you suggest we proceed from there?
For a "proverbial gun", it would depend on what form of gun might exist. But a fairly general way would be to look at expected output versus actual output.

Under full Constitutionality, Congressmen are intended to be individuals that are known within their electoral districts by the local land-owning males, and whom they view as being respectable and able to be trusted to represent the interests of the people of the electoral district and able to be trusted to make decisions on their own that the local people would feel was reasonable if they had the time and inclination to become fully informed on the subject.

Under full Constitutionality, it would also be clear to these individuals that they are being held to a high standard. It is their job to personify thousands or millions of people and freely deliberate and vote with their full power. Likewise, he is expected to police the Executive Branch through his oversight duties and impeachment/removal trial mandates and to obey the Bill of Rights, even where its philosophical outlays may directly infringe on the ability of the government to do good.

And under full Constitutionality, it should be possible to vote on things as majorities and supermajorities, based on the merit of the topic in question. It is clearly not the intention that the concept of a "supermajority" was included in the Constitution as a proxy for "your party got 66% of the vote!? Woohoo dawg, you do anything you want!" Nor, for that matter, was the concept of a simple majority.

The explicit intent of the Constitution and the raison d'etre of a representative government is to elect, as said, trustworthy and empowered individuals who are reasonable and faithful about things like the limitations imposed by the Bill of Rights and the rules imposed by the Constitution. And that is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Raw passion, simple understandings of issues, greed, tribalism, religious doctrine, should not be the basis of the output of the government. The people can and do litigate subjects in such simple and inexcusable ways, and it is the job of the representative to be a better person than that.

Based on that somewhat reduced and simplified explanation of the intentions underlying the Constitution, and without going in to any specifics of modern day or anything else, what would you say, are things operating as fully intended or simply in accordance with some technical aspects of the precise lettering? *

* Though, obviously, we can ignore the bit about "land-owning males".
  #6867  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:18 AM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 163
https://t.co/999bccZZGN?amp=1

The Government Accountability Office has issued a legal opinion memo saying that the President broke the law when he withheld funding authorized by Congress to the Ukraine.
  #6868  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:29 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
https://t.co/999bccZZGN?amp=1

The Government Accountability Office has issued a legal opinion memo saying that the President broke the law when he withheld funding authorized by Congress to the Ukraine.
Thus endeth the rationale "Waaah! But he didn't break any LAWWWWWWWW!"
  #6869  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:37 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,343
Doesn't count. Clearly it's the Deep State at work.
  #6870  
Old 01-16-2020, 10:43 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Doesn't count. Clearly it's the Deep State at work.
Also, it was clearly a law passed by the sad Democrat party, only purpose is to make Trump look bad.
  #6871  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:10 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
2020 election interference by Ukraine:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-by-trump-ally

They allege that it may be criminal to stalk a diplomat.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-16-2020 at 11:11 AM.
  #6872  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:30 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
2020 election interference by Ukraine:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-by-trump-ally

They allege that it may be criminal to stalk a diplomat.
Quote:
Ukrainian officials announced an investigation into possible surveillance of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch before she was ousted from her post by the Trump administration.
Well at least Trump got his wish, and Ukraine announced an investigation.
  #6873  
Old 01-16-2020, 11:34 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
The House impeachment manages will be:
Adam Schiff
Jerry Nadler
Val Demings
Zoe Lofgren
Hakeem Jeffries
Jason Crow
Sylvia Garcia
They have every group covered except an atheist transsexual.
  #6874  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:07 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
They have every group covered except an atheist transsexual.
I'm sure the defense team will do a better job of covering white males.
  #6875  
Old 01-16-2020, 12:32 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I didn't suggest that they did. It was, fairly clearly, a hypothetical built to establish that context can be relevant.
Unfortunately we are not dealing with a hypothetical situation. The Senate will be conducting a trial and they will need to set rules. And the rule about making the rules is that a majority of the senators must agree to them. I don't know how else to operate in the real world. It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have.

That isn't to say I disagree with your hypothetical. If it could be determined some of the voting members of the body were under duress, we would need to figure out how to relieve that pressure to get a fair vote. 100% agree.

Personally, I'd say things are operating as intended, for the most part. The "gun" is the threat of being primaried or removed from office by failing to gain reelection. That strongly implies the majority of the voting constituents for the Senators with the gun to their head are in alignment with the how the Senator is being pressured to vote. If the folks back home felt differently, the gun would be forcing them Senator to vote the other way. Similarly, most of the D Senators equally have a gun to their head, knowing full well they better vote guilty or they will face the backlash of their constituency. Either way, every Senator does have a gun to their head. I'm not sure that will ever go away and I don't know that it should. The Senator should feel pressure to vote in alignment with how the people he/she is representing would vote if they were there instead.

Last edited by cmosdes; 01-16-2020 at 12:33 PM.
  #6876  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:21 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,448
Their dilemma is more complicated than that. All across the country, Trump commands a rock solid base that will vote for him no matter what. Somewhere around 35%. Not enough, in most cases, where the divide is closer. Especially as the Dems/Progs are feeling rather more motivated themselves.

So, most senators are going to have to get some votes from moderate/sane side. 51% is not a big win, but it is a win, 35% is not. Senator Throckmorton has a choice: he can stick with his base and pander to them, and still hope to get some of us to go along (unlikely), or betray the Trump base and play to the middle, against a candidate who centrist/sane boney fidoes are not of such recent vintage (doom).
  #6877  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:40 PM
MulderMuffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Buckle of the bible belt
Posts: 163
And now the impeachment inquiry is officially over. The Senate trial will begin Tuesday at 1pm. I found the pomp and circumstance of the oaths and signing felt somber and momentous. I'm glad I got a chance to watch it. I admit I was waiting for someone to show out. I'm glad I was wrong. I noticed the Chief Justice's hands were shaking a bit as he called the senators to take their oaths.
  #6878  
Old 01-16-2020, 02:43 PM
Locrian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
And now the impeachment inquiry is officially over. The Senate trial will begin Tuesday at 1pm. I found the pomp and circumstance of the oaths and signing felt somber and momentous. I'm glad I got a chance to watch it. I admit I was waiting for someone to show out. I'm glad I was wrong. I noticed the Chief Justice's hands were shaking a bit as he called the senators to take their oaths.
Does this mean we need a new thread for The Trump Impeachment Trial?
  #6879  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:08 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Also, it was clearly a law passed by the sad Democrat party, only purpose is to make Trump look bad.
And it's really more of a "guideline" than a law anyway, right Senator Braun?
  #6880  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:13 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locrian View Post
Does this mean we need a new thread for The Trump Impeachment Trial?
Under the new "no omnibus threads" rules, Yes.

Last edited by JohnT; 01-16-2020 at 03:14 PM.
  #6881  
Old 01-16-2020, 03:47 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Their dilemma is more complicated than that. All across the country, Trump commands a rock solid base that will vote for him no matter what. Somewhere around 35%. Not enough, in most cases, where the divide is closer. Especially as the Dems/Progs are feeling rather more motivated themselves.

So, most senators are going to have to get some votes from moderate/sane side. 51% is not a big win, but it is a win, 35% is not. Senator Throckmorton has a choice: he can stick with his base and pander to them, and still hope to get some of us to go along (unlikely), or betray the Trump base and play to the middle, against a candidate who centrist/sane boney fidoes are not of such recent vintage (doom).
I've wondered about this and the vote tally in the house. Why were there zero (0) R representatives worried about being more centrist in the house vote? Was the fear of losing the Trump base bigger than the hope for gaining some centrists in all 199 cases? I would have thought 1 or 2 or a dozen representatives would be in districts that are slightly blue or at least very, very lightly red. I would think in those districts the appearance of being a pure Trumpist would be detrimental, not helpful. But not 1 of them R representatives voted that way. Any thoughts why?
  #6882  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:02 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,225
All of them are up for election this year. It's better to have all of the base and hope you get some other votes, than lose the entire base. Essentially they are too pot heavy at this point, so they have no choice but to go all in.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #6883  
Old 01-16-2020, 04:45 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
All of them are up for election this year. It's better to have all of the base and hope you get some other votes, than lose the entire base. Essentially they are too pot heavy at this point, so they have no choice but to go all in.
(Emphasis added)

Some did warn against legalizing pot....
  #6884  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:13 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
All of them are up for election this year. It's better to have all of the base and hope you get some other votes, than lose the entire base. Essentially they are too pot heavy at this point, so they have no choice but to go all in.
I would think in at least 1 moderate district the number of votes to be lost from the undecided voters when voting for impeachment would be more than the votes lost to hard line Trumpists who will just stay home. It isn't as if the Trumpists are going to vote for the D candidate under any circumstances. When talking about a primary, here again I would think there is at least 1 moderate district in which voting for impeachment would garner more votes than it loses.

Obviously not one of the R representatives felt that way. Given the Blue Wave that happened in 2018 I have a hard time really understanding this. There were even a few D representatives that went the other way.
  #6885  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:18 PM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
All of them are up for election this year. It's better to have all of the base and hope you get some other votes, than lose the entire base. Essentially they are too pot heavy at this point, so they have no choice but to go all in.
Their problem is that they would need some big, sudden revelation to justify a reverse of course now, (like Nixon's tapes) -- something that they could be sure would outweigh all of the base and then some. But Trump's corruption just keeps emerging incrementally, so they can't really discern how much of the rest of the voters will ultimately react.
  #6886  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:20 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
All of them are up for election this year. It's better to have all of the base and hope you get some other votes, than lose the entire base. Essentially they are too pot heavy at this point, so they have no choice but to go all in.
Mix in some last minute rally around the flag war by the Republicans, as much voter suppression as you can get away with and a soupcon of foreign interference and you can win a lot of elections.

Hell, my Republican voting family wouldn't even need the wool pulled over their eyes; they would favor these things explicitly in order to win elections and don't even require the pretenses.
  #6887  
Old 01-16-2020, 05:35 PM
Fretful Porpentine is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I would think in at least 1 moderate district the number of votes to be lost from the undecided voters when voting for impeachment would be more than the votes lost to hard line Trumpists who will just stay home. It isn't as if the Trumpists are going to vote for the D candidate under any circumstances. When talking about a primary, here again I would think there is at least 1 moderate district in which voting for impeachment would garner more votes than it loses.

Obviously not one of the R representatives felt that way. Given the Blue Wave that happened in 2018 I have a hard time really understanding this. There were even a few D representatives that went the other way.
I think it's because of the blue wave that we're seeing this pattern. There simply aren't all that many Republicans left in moderate districts, and almost none in Democratic-leaning ones, while there are a ton of (often newly-elected and potentially vulnerable) Democrats in slightly Republican-leaning districts. It's actually surprising that there were so few Democratic defectors, given that there are, on paper, a lot more Democrats who might have an electoral incentive to defect.
__________________
Live merrily, and trust to good verses.
-- Robert Herrick
  #6888  
Old 01-16-2020, 06:15 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
I've wondered about this and the vote tally in the house. Why were there zero (0) R representatives worried about being more centrist in the house vote? Was the fear of losing the Trump base bigger than the hope for gaining some centrists in all 199 cases? I would have thought 1 or 2 or a dozen representatives would be in districts that are slightly blue or at least very, very lightly red. I would think in those districts the appearance of being a pure Trumpist would be detrimental, not helpful. But not 1 of them R representatives voted that way. Any thoughts why?
At this point Congressional Republicans are more afraid of the Trump base deserting them in a primary election than the general election. What's the point of appealing to moderate voters in November if you don't make it through the primary this Spring?
  #6889  
Old 01-16-2020, 07:05 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegee View Post
HOM? His Orange Majesty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
...(which have direct bearing on what His Obscene Majesty was trying to get the Ukrainian President to commit to doing in aid of HOM's re-election campaign).



Quote:
Originally Posted by MulderMuffin View Post
https://t.co/999bccZZGN?amp=1
The Government Accountability Office has issued a legal opinion memo saying that the President broke the law when he withheld funding authorized by Congress to the Ukraine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Thus endeth the rationale "Waaah! But he didn't break any LAWWWWWWWW!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Doesn't count. Clearly it's the Deep State at work.
Nothing would count. The MAGAts have already decided that a cold-blooded fatal shooting, committed in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue, would be fine and dandy.

Still, not-paying-much-attention fence-sitters might be impressed by the fact that Trump has been found to have broken an actual law. So this could have an effect.
  #6890  
Old 01-16-2020, 07:52 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,884
Lev Parnas threatened that every time Individual 1 said he didn't know him, he was going to post a photo of the two of them together.
He did one better. He posted a video of Individual 1 introducing him to people at Mar a Lago
https://occupydemocrats.com/2020/01/...know-him-again
  #6891  
Old 01-16-2020, 08:17 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
I think it's because of the blue wave that we're seeing this pattern. There simply aren't all that many Republicans left in moderate districts, and almost none in Democratic-leaning ones, while there are a ton of (often newly-elected and potentially vulnerable) Democrats in slightly Republican-leaning districts. It's actually surprising that there were so few Democratic defectors, given that there are, on paper, a lot more Democrats who might have an electoral incentive to defect.
Good point that the blue wave would have swept out many of the Republicans in moderate districts, but I still feel like terms "all that many" and "almost none" would lead to at least *1* Republican voting for impeachment. But your explanation makes sense.

Kent ClarkYou are right, but it just doesn't quite fully make sense to me. If voting against impeachment in a moderate district means they would lose the general election for sure, the smart move would be vote for impeachment and take your chances in the primary and hope that enough moderate Republicans in the district could see the facts. In every.single.case, the republican representative thought their chances of losing the primary were higher than losing the election if they voted to impeach.

I agree with what you and Fretful Porpentine are saying, but I'd feel better if there were 1 or 2 or a few republicans who voted to impeach.
  #6892  
Old 01-17-2020, 06:35 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
How do you suggest we determine how many and which Senators have a gun to their head? If you could somehow objectively determine that some Senators do, in fact, have a proverbial gun to their head, how do you suggest we proceed from there?
I guess, for a more concrete answer:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-amid-standoff
  #6893  
Old 01-17-2020, 07:46 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 6,140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
At this point Congressional Republicans are more afraid of the Trump base deserting them in a primary election than the general election. What's the point of appealing to moderate voters in November if you don't make it through the primary this Spring?
Oh, I dunno, to live by one's principles?

Oh, wait. They were.
  #6894  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:48 AM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I guess, for a more concrete answer:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...-amid-standoff
Can you connect those dots for me? I'm not seeing how bargaining for witnesses is linked to duress for Senators or how that would tell us which Senators are under duress and which ones aren't. Also, as I said before, isn't *every* Senator under duress?
  #6895  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:45 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Can you connect those dots for me? I'm not seeing how bargaining for witnesses is linked to duress for Senators or how that would tell us which Senators are under duress and which ones aren't. Also, as I said before, isn't *every* Senator under duress?
Yes, and you also implied that there should be duress, which is false and I fail to see any argument in favor of it.

A close normal world example might be corporate hierarchy. It's generally accepted that it would be bad for your superior, 3 levels up, to be jumping over the heads of his subordinates to give you orders, fire you, or whatever else.

Just because you are the boss does not mean that you can or should command the results (context depending). Once you delegate control of X to a particular person, then you are expected to stand back and accept that you have delegated .

And that's just talking about voters.

If we were talking about two managers in a company, both wrangling for a bigger slice of the budget - where they know that it's between them or the other guy - it's one thing to send your boss some champagne and talk down the other team and another to tell all your underlings to insert malicious code into the services that the other team is going to take over.

At the end of the day, we're all on the same team. Jostling and bargaining within your territory is fine and reasonable. Doing things that are in direct conflict with your duties, and harmful to the organization, just to get your way is not.
  #6896  
Old 01-17-2020, 06:26 PM
cmosdes is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Yes, and you also implied that there should be duress, which is false and I fail to see any argument in favor of it.

A close normal world example might be corporate hierarchy. It's generally accepted that it would be bad for your superior, 3 levels up, to be jumping over the heads of his subordinates to give you orders, fire you, or whatever else.

Just because you are the boss does not mean that you can or should command the results (context depending). Once you delegate control of X to a particular person, then you are expected to stand back and accept that you have delegated .

And that's just talking about voters.

If we were talking about two managers in a company, both wrangling for a bigger slice of the budget - where they know that it's between them or the other guy - it's one thing to send your boss some champagne and talk down the other team and another to tell all your underlings to insert malicious code into the services that the other team is going to take over.

At the end of the day, we're all on the same team. Jostling and bargaining within your territory is fine and reasonable. Doing things that are in direct conflict with your duties, and harmful to the organization, just to get your way is not.
Thanks for the explanation. I admit, I'm not following but that is likely a shortcoming on my part. I appreciate the effort in trying to explain. I'll reread this again later and see if I can understand it when I have a bit more time to digest. I get all the concepts you are talking about, I just don't see how they all fit. I substituted the word "duress" instead of continually typing "having a proverbial gun to their head", so I'm also confused why I'm being attributed with the requirement there should be duress.

So I'm clear, I'm just not understanding and I'm attributing that to me. I just need to digest it a bit more, I think. I don't mean to dismiss the conversation but I don't want to hijack it further.
  #6897  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:04 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmosdes View Post
Good point that the blue wave would have swept out many of the Republicans in moderate districts, but I still feel like terms "all that many" and "almost none" would lead to at least *1* Republican voting for impeachment. But your explanation makes sense.

Kent ClarkYou are right, but it just doesn't quite fully make sense to me. If voting against impeachment in a moderate district means they would lose the general election for sure, the smart move would be vote for impeachment and take your chances in the primary and hope that enough moderate Republicans in the district could see the facts. In every.single.case, the republican representative thought their chances of losing the primary were higher than losing the election if they voted to impeach.

I agree with what you and Fretful Porpentine are saying, but I'd feel better if there were 1 or 2 or a few republicans who voted to impeach.
First of all, the only reason there is not 1 Republican voting for impeachment is that Justin Amash, who was elected on the GOP ticket, had already left the party after coming out in favor of impeachment over the Mueller report.

Generally, I think there are a few reasons it's still such a small number:

I think the biggest reason is that even if there is a bloc of moderate votes who would lean Republican but don't want someone who will side with Trump over his corruption is probably already blaming the GOP for enabling Trump. I think Republicans in congress think that they won't get enough credit if they side against Trump now and will end up without the die-hards or enough of the moderates. I'm sure supporting impeachment will get some of the anti-Trump moderates but I sizeable portion are going to turn Democrats at least in the short-term.

I think the herd mentality, and the makeup of the GOP after 2008 also matters. If there was already a group of Republicans defecting, you would probably somewhat of a contagious effect, but as it stands if you are one of the only GOP congressmen to support impeachment you are going to have a huge target on your back and it is an absolute guarantee that you will face as much pressure from the party as they can put on you. Another factor is the fact that GOP congressmen who would rather bet on surviving a primary challenge to appeal to a wider group of voters in the general were exactly the people the tea party targeted, so congress is now made up of people who themselves got there by challenging moderates in the primaries and some who had to adapt to survive the tea party.

Last edited by str8cashhomie; 01-17-2020 at 11:07 PM.
  #6898  
Old 01-18-2020, 05:51 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
I'm sure the defense team will do a better job of covering white males.
Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, and Robert Ray. "A septuagenarian Fox News’s watchers idea of a legal dream team." - Josh Marshall
  #6899  
Old 01-18-2020, 11:10 AM
jsc1953 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, and Robert Ray. "A septuagenarian Fox News’s watchers idea of a legal dream team." - Josh Marshall
Trump seems to have loaded his defense team with TV-friendly lawyers despite the fact that it remains to be seen if any of the proceedings will be televised.
  #6900  
Old 01-18-2020, 02:18 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,884
I wonder if he will get any one-on-one client attorney meetings with Pam Bondi.
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 02:22 PM.

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