I don’t know why people insist on this. It might be true for lots of folks, or even most folks, but the analogy with a trial should not be ignored. If I say “Chronos should be tried for murder”, I mean that he should go to trial to find out if he’s guilty. That is, I think there is enough evidence for a trial. But usually I wouldn’t be so certain that a conviction must be found. Same with impeachment. I might think there is enough evidence to impeach Trump, but it’s really in the trial at the Senate that we get to see all the evidence and hear fully from both sides.
It’s only at the trial that the president/defendant gets to present his full case. One might be perfectly OK with Clinton being impeached, but not think it rose to the level of removal from office.
Unless I specifically specify “conviction,” I mean the whole shebang. It’s the conviction which means impeachment was proper, like a conviction in a trial means that you are guilty of the crime.
Sure, I could use it to mean someone I think should have been convicted, like I will still call Louis Zimmerman and OJ Simpson murderers. But, by and large, if I want someone impeached, I want them convicted, and so the meaning attaches to the word.
I can only think the SDMB is a biased sample, as it’s how I hear it used all the time outside of very specific, technical contexts. When people say “Impeach Trump,” they mean “Kick Trump out of office.” I’ve seen it used that way all the time here.
Otherwise, it’s rather pointless. Why would you want him impeached but not convicted?
Oh, and I voted for 1 and 3, since they mean the same thing in this context.
You misunderstand me. I was saying that DrDeth was assuming people are incorrect in their understanding of the word impeachment WHEN they use it as shorthand.
I’m saying they are not misusing the word. They are using shorthand with full understanding of what the word means.
In what way? You phrased the poll options poorly, and the result you seem to subscribe to got a small vote total. In addition, folks could vote for multiple options. I’d say the results are questionable, but if they say anything they say your interpretation is not the most popular one.
“Impeach Trump” is also a poor way to suss out the answer. The poll would have been more illustrative if the question was:
"No US President has been impeached, true or false?"
And of course the answer is false, yet you believe it to be true. That would highlight the discrepancy in how you understand the word and how others do.
At the risk of a second misunderstanding, I think both sentences are fine ways to suss out the answer, and I’m happy that the poll has multiple answers. The word has different meanings according to context.
If someone asks me, “Has any president ever been impeached?” I think a “Yes, twice” answer is not a great answer, because of the multiple meanings of the word. The shortest answer I’d give is, “Two presidents have technically been impeached, as in, they had articles of impeachment drawn against them, but in neither case were they removed from office.”
If I were writing a computer language, I’d come up with a secondary term for the removal-from-office-by-impeachment; but since I’m dealing with natural language, I just figure sometimes I gotta clarify :).
Not necessarily. A zucchini is a fruit, true or false? Botanically, it’s a fruiting body, sure–but at the grocery store, it’s with the vegetables, not with the fruits. The grocery store isn’t incorrect, they’re just not classifying plant parts botanically, rather classifying foods according to how they’re prepared and consumed.
If someone insisted on asking that true or false question about impeachment, I’d ask for clarification. If they refused to give it to me, I’d use that context to assume they were being super pedantic, and a super pedantic person is probably going for the technical definition.
Impeachment is not a zucchini. I’ll give a pass to anyone who wasn’t of age to follow the Clinton impeachment, or is a child. That’s about it. But that pass means correcting their ignorance, not indulging it.
If someone says, “no US president has been impeached” then they are wrong, factually incorrect. No “technically” about it.
Even more illustrative, "Was Bill Clinton impeached? " the correct answer is Yes - any explanation is fine too. If the answer given is “No” then that answer is wrong regardless of any explanation that doesn’t include redefining words.
Yeah, I also thought, “Didn’t we all learn what ‘impeachment’ meant – if we didn’t already know – the last time it happened?”
I mean, I understand not everyone knows much about U.S. history or Congressional procedure or whatnot – but surely any American who owned a T.V. or had a newspaper subscription in the '90s knows that Clinton was impeached, and that he was not convicted. Right?
(I say “owned” rather than “had” to exclude the age group who at the time were more interested in the Teletubbies.)
I mean, sure, you can’t grate impeachment and bake it into a mediocre breakfast treat. But in the relevant aspects, the word “impeachment” is a zucchini. The word, like the vegetable, has multiple uses, and can be categorized and used differently depending on the context.
If someone says, “Clinton wasn’t impeached,” that’s the sort of statement that could use clarification; but it requires no redefinition of the word, since one of the common definitions of the word is that “impeach” means to remove from office.
I know it’s not the legal definition, but it’s absolutely a common definition in use.
When you run out of milk or something, do you ever say, “I need to go to the store?” Why? Don’t you realize that you actually have to BUY MILK once you’re there? That’s what you actually mean isn’t it, that you need to buy milk? Going to the store is only the first step in the process, and won’t accomplish anything by itself.
If this answer impresses you, you might think I’m so smart I should go to law school. I hope not!!! Unless you mean to imply that I should then graduate from law school and then practice law as a career in which you hope and expect I find success, in which case, thank you! But what you actually would have said is that I should go to law school, which is extremely difficult, expensive, and time consuming. If you didn’t’ mean to imply that I should also graduate and have a successful career, it wasn’t very nice of you to wish that on me! (This is assuming that we can agree that “go to law school” actually means attend law school as a student, rather than simply travel to a law school. The lack of an article (a or the) in the phrase is generally the clue to the intended meaning in this idiom, so that shouldn’t be controversial, but it’s better to get these things spelled out explicitly!)
When used in conversation as in saying, as the op specifies, “Impeach Trump”, the clear meaning is not only the actual House action but the implied Senate conviction on the impeachment charges or resignation before such occurs. Yeah yeah, the bringing the articles of impeachment is the literal impeachment and the Senate is actually trying the impeachment, and may or may not convict. Yes Clinton was impeached but not convicted and not removed from office.
But when someone says “Impeach Trump” it is 100% clear in most contexts with people who are not part of government or scholars or pedants that the whole megillah is what is meant. The word has a meaning in that context that is meant by the speaker and understood by the listener to mean the same thing which what words are supposed to do.
Anyone who in that context trots out that “well you know that ‘impeachment’ actually means …” will justifiably earn eyerolls as an Sheldon-line obnox.