(play by play announcer) Ooh, he hits him with a “grow up”, that could be devastating. Lets see how his opponent reacts to that.
…LOL. How is impeachment going to “flood out” an issue that Bernie is not even talking about? How does that work?
I know exactly how “news coverage happens.” “How news coverage happens” should not be a consideration on whether or not the Dems should start impeachment proceedings.
Oh, you lol’d? I must be wrong then.
How news coverage happens is rather obviously a consideration. Not much point talking politics with someone who denies that. The world isn’t going to be in the room when Banquet Bear’s fav congressman is talking, he needs news coverage.
They might believe the Right Thing to Do is to get Trump out of office.
Those arguing on the “IMPEACH NOW” side may believe that Impeaching Now will have results such as:
[ul]
[li]Trump realizing–being unable to escape the awareness–that the American People reject him and all his works[/li][li]Trump voters realizing that Impeachment means that they should feel shame[/li][li]Other voters gaining a new respect for the noble and virtuous Democrats[/li][/ul]
This is all fantasy.
Trump will not realize any such thing. He and his fans “know” that impeachment is a purely partisan exercise by Haters. He will feel no twinge of recognition that he and his ways are being rejected; his fans will feel no twinge of shame.
Aside from that: I haven’t seen anyone arguing that impeachment should be taken off the table. It should NOT be taken off the table.
But as several of us have said, Democrats should level with the American people: *There is extensive evidence that this president has committed wrongdoing that is fully impeachable, according to the Constitution. But the sad truth is that because he has protectors in the Senate, Republicans who will not do their duty to look at the evidence fairly, impeachment will be a waste of the time and resources we could be putting into working to improve our economy, our security, and our lives.
When that changes, we will move to impeach. But we won’t put on a show with a foregone conclusion. We will investigate the president’s wrongdoing fully and publicly, while continuing to work for your interests.*
As a side note: Democrats will have to fight to obtain documents and materials needed to perform those investigations. Filing articles of impeachment now would remove one of their most powerful arguments for being granted access to those documents and materials: the need for full information in making the decision on whether or not to impeach.
If they’ve already impeached, they’ve increased the chance that the courts will say ‘you clearly don’t need those documents because you’ve already made your decision.’
…yep.
It shouldn’t be. You don’t decide not to “prosecute an alleged murderer” just because that alleged murderer is a popular movie star that everybody loves. Fox News is literally bending over backwards to tell the stories that the President of the United States wants to hear. Just think about that for a minute. If Fox News frames stories to please the President, and if you choose not to impeach because of the way Fox News **might **frame the story, aren’t you doing exactly what the President wants? Why are you letting them control what you do?
You can’t game this system. The system games you. You are being played.
You are free to stop replying to me.
…nope. This is a strawman.
The only problem is that Trump isn’t a murderer and impeachment isn’t a criminal trial. There will be no randomly selected jury. There is no innocent until proven guilty. It’s a political process and if the public isn’t on board, it’s simply not going to happen. That’s kinda democracy.
…that doesn’t matter. Prosecutors should make decisions based on the facts in front of them. And the House should make decisions based on the facts in front of them. They shouldn’t be swayed because of how the media will frame the story: because some media are de-facto propaganda outlets for the Trump regime, and other media outlets are busy “chasing clicks” and have left ethics and morality at the door.
“Getting the public on board” is as meaningless a metric as “considering news coverage.” That isn’t kinda what democracy is. We don’t hold referendum on every single decision made by the people we elect to represent us.
How dare you accuse a man who organized civil rights marches in Chicago in 1962 of not understanding racism. That’s disgusting.
I haven’t seen polls, but my guess is the majority of Bernie supporters are inclined more to your view than mine.
No one I know thinks this. I do think it’s important to respect the rule of law, which means upholding the rule of law. Mueller maintained his integrity through this horrendous process by doing just that. I think he wants Congress to do the same.
You’ve already said more words than most Americans will listen to. Honestly, I think we’re talking past each other. My view is, if you believe impeachable offenses have already occurred, then you proceed with impeachment hearings. You can call them “oversight” hearings if you prefer, but the goal is to educate the public. I really don’t care what the proceedings are called. I already said earlier in this thread that I felt slow-walking the process was the Democrats’ best option. Personally, I think Trump is shit-scared of impeachment proceedings. It’s why he’s pretending to welcome them.
Courts don’t work that way. They are not in charge of Congress, and they generally avoid speculating about any purpose for which Congress may or may not make their request. The sole issue before the courts is, is there a legal basis to grant the request? And in these matters before this Congress, I assure you, there is a solid basis in law for them to have all that they are requesting. Congress is not subordinate to the courts. They’re not Oliver Twist: “Please, sir, can I have some more?”
As for Dems having to fight to obtain that to which they are lawfully entitled because a president is unlawfully attempting to block their access to it, and for a corrupt purpose, no less (obstruction of justice)… your perspective on this only demonstrates how far we have already strayed from the custom and practice of being a nation of laws that operates under co-equal branches of government. It will not get better because Democrats wring their hands and wonder whether to term their Congressional oversight hearings as “impeachment” or “oversight.”
I respect Pelosi and she mostly has her caucus onboard with her approach. I hope like hell it goes as she wants it to. I did appreciate a comment I heard tonight about it, something to the effect of, well, if she’s playing rope-a-dope, she couldn’t have found a better dope. No disagreement there.
No one will is holding a referendum but what world do you live in where politicians would ignore their own percieved political interests AND public opinion?
Pelosi is giving most of what you want, continued public investigation, but not miring herself in an unpopular and doomed endeavor.
…yes, HOW DARE I!!!
And how DARE you read what I said, and claim I said something I didn’t! I didn’t say “he doesn’t understand racism.” I said “He just doesn’t appear to understand “what diversity is all about” and he will probably never understand.” Having said that I don’t think he really understand racism either, but I didn’t say that before, so perhaps you should have held off your righteous indignations until I actually said it. You were a bit premature.
And I don’t give a fuck that he organized marches in 1962. I respect him for that. But its 2019. Its a different world now. And if Bernie is going to be complaining about “identity politics” and strawmanning arguments in favour of diversity then perhaps he isn’t the expert on “race and diversity” that we need to be hearing from right now.
Whats disgusting is getting a lecture from Bernie about not talking about “sexism and racism and homophobia” when these things he has done nothing recently but pay lip service to these three topics. How dare I? How dare he. How dare he use marginalised people as a shield. How dare he use marginalised people as a defense for not being in favour of impeachment.
I would love for Bernie to come to the table. I would love to have Bernie starting to listen, to start to amplify the voices of marginalised people. But he could start doing that now. Why isn’t he doing it now? And if the Dems don’t impeach, will anything change?
Well, this has been an interesting discussion, at least. It’s been a refreshing change for me to be the guy telling others that they are irresponsibly pursuing an ideologically purist agenda without considering political realities!
Bernie has been fighting for marginalized people since before you were born. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. All you do is keep repeating tired Clintonista talking points from 2016 like a retarded parrot.
Things will change when we get the Republicans out of the White House, which won’t happen until January 2020, whether the House impeaches him or not. You should be focused on getting Trump out of office, not meeting some purity pony standard of self-defeating righteousness. But what do you care, you’re not even an American. This is all a fucking point-scoring game to you. But over here, real people are suffering every day at the hands of the GOP oligarchs. We want him gone, and we don’t care about your pompous, ignorant lectures about our “duty” to make meaningless gestures, even if it means losing the last chance to save our democracy.
…I live in a world where I think that the decision to impeach should not be a partisan decision. Choosing not to initiate impeachment based on their political interests of the Dems is about as partisan as you can get.
You don’t actually understand what I want. I respect Pelosi. Before the report came out I agreed with her. But its entirely fair to rethink that calculus once the report got made public.
It’s not purely partisan to respect public opinion. The country doesn’t want an impeachment, the smartest politician in the room thinks it’s a bad idea, get it through your head that it’s a bad move.
…“Clintonista talking points?” “Retarded parrots?”
I speak my own mind thank-you-very-much. I give as much of a fuck about Clinton than I do about Sanders.
I’m glad you got all of that off your chest. It has nothing to do with anything I’ve said in this thread, but I hope you feel better after saying it.
I’m as concerned as you are about the sake of your democracy. Which is why I changed my mind. Every expert on authoritarianism that I’ve listened too are in favour of impeachment. This isn’t about point scoring or “purity pony standards of self-defeating righteousness” or whatever other label you want to use on me.
There is nothing stopping Bernie talking about other things. He’s the front-runner, he can set the conversation regardless of what the House decides to do. He has made a ridiculous argument and your inability or unwillingness to defend it says it all.
I’m not going to be as arrogant as many here and try and predict the outcome of either impeaching or not impeaching. But like it or not either decision is a gamble. Its a coin-toss. I’ve dived pretty deep into how the alt-right & co have controlled the messaging. I’ve seen it evolve from #endfathersday to goobergate to what we saw in 2016 to what its evolved into today. And you guys simply don’t understand how it all works. And I don’t think it will end up the way you think it will end up.
How extremely convenient for you, to be able to ignore consequences. But assessing the outcome is how intelligent adults decide on actions. If you have no prediction on how your plan will work and you’re in disagreement with the people actually involved, does not a shred of humility shadow your righteousness?
…it is purely partisan if the decision to not impeach is made in order to secure votes at the next election. It is purely partisan if the decision not to impeach is based on how the Dems **think **the media will frame that decision.
The smartest expert on authoritarianism I know thinks impeachment is the best and most appropriate move to make. Elizabeth Warren sat down after the Mueller Report was released, read it cover-to-cover, and when she finished reading she hopped on twitter and said she supported impeachment. Get it through your head: some very smart people disagree with Pelosi. And that’s okay. Get it through your head: we are in Great Debates, and we are having a robust debate. You can’t just declare “Pelosi” and expect me to grant you victory.