What was the plan to regain US government trustworthiness if Trump wasn't impeached?

[BobLibDem]

I don’t think there’s any plan, just hope that we get the bastard out either by impeachment/conviction or by election.

I disagree with some of what has been said. Impeachment does not disenfranchise anybody. Those who voted for him did so either out of party loyalty, distrust of Hillary, single issues (guns, abortion), or just plain wanted to shake things up. Most didn’t knowingly vote for a criminal. They thought he as a funny buffoon, someone to shrug off political correctness, someone who would stand up for the US. I’d like to think that if they knew he’d be a common criminal, they wouldn’t have voted for him.

Enough about riling up his base. His base is always riled up. They always vote, and they always vote for the guy with the ® after his name. Fun prediction, as he leaves office, the Fox news graphic will show a (D) after his name. What impeachment will do is give notice to the American people that the law means something. If he gets away with it and somehow gets re-elected, then the US is completely finished.

There’s nothing wrong with the country that getting Republicans out of office wouldn’t largely correct. Sure, there’s a vile white nationalist segment. They didn’t begin with Donald, they just became freer to express their vulgar beliefs. Take away their political leader, and they crawl back under the rocks from which they came.

[DrDeth]

@RioRico

I hope serious pollsters clearly explain to the polled the differences between a Congressional impeachment inquiry (gathering evidence), a Congressional impeachment (indictment on charges for trial), a Senate trial conducted by CJOTUS, and conviction and removal by the Senate.

How many Americans, and likely voters, want him either gone or retained no matter what else happens? How many are eager for the process to proceed? How many wish this would all just go the fuck away?
…

All good points.

[Kimstu]

@Sage_Rat

Cars existed for a hundred years before someone figured out that you could drive them into a crowd of people, as a means of mass murder.

For very low values of “a hundred”, perhaps, or if you’re ignoring the crimes of, say, Olga Hepnarova in 1973.

[RioRico]

@Sage Rat

Cars existed for a hundred years before someone figured out that you could drive them into a crowd of people, as a means of mass murder.

@Kimstu

For very low values of “a hundred”, perhaps, or if you’re ignoring the crimes of, say, Olga Hepnarova in 1973.

Wikipedia, Vehicle-ramming incidents: “1953 Elias Antonio case, Syrian merchant who killed one person and wounded up to 29 others in Bento Ribeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil when ramming his car into a carnival block”.

Dating the auto era from the 1895 Selden patent, ‘hundred’ is less than 60. Ha. I haven’t found if classic gangland wars involved driving into groups, or if teamsters drove loaded horse-drawn wagons into gathered pedestrians. I bet charioteers rolled over any peasant gangs in their way. Crushing the innocent is a long tradition.

Which has nothing to do with government trustworthiness. But IMHO fear and loathing of government will drive US secession pushes. Is Heinlein’s FRIDAY a model of the breakup? Does America end with a bang or several whimpers?

[CarnalK]

@RioRico

Pull up the USC on your screen. Search for the word ‘right’. Count and locate the hits. Notic how many cover voting. And consider that ‘rights’ imply responsibility. You can hand it over to me by neglecting to vote. Don’t worry, pal, I’ll cast my vote responsibly, heh heh.
.

No, you search the Constitution and report back how many rights relate to voting. Very few. Maybe include a short paragraph explaining why women, black and landless people weren’t allowed to vote. Thanks in advance, pal!

[str8cashhomie]

@CarnalK

No, you search the Constitution and report back how many rights relate to voting. Very few. Maybe include a short paragraph explaining why women, black and landless people weren’t allowed to vote. Thanks in advance, pal!

The 15th and 19th amendments are actually about as clear as the constitution gets.

The reason it’s been possible to deny voting rights to women, black people, etc. is primarily twofold:

-States and the federal government have since had varying laws about what exactly constitutes racial discrimination. Many states came up with very complicated rules to deny black people the vote that technically never mentioned race, but were designed to be enforced only for black people. It took the voting rights act (which is still on the books, although it was neutered by the supreme court) to strengthen federal enforcement over states putting arbitrary restrictions intended to marginalize racial or other groups.

-You put any right you want in the law, but if societies completely reject it, it’s not going to matter. Essentially the reason the right is actually respected today is that a lot of brave people were willing to risk arrest and murder to try and vote, and they completely changed the way large portions of society looked at their right to vote and “the violence inherent in the system.”

The reason it used to be possible to deny voting rights to women, is that it wasn’t in the constitution. Since the 19th women’s right to vote has been much better protected than the 15th.

[CarnalK]

@str8cashhomie

The 15th and 19th amendments are actually about as clear as the constitution gets.

Uh huh, both added about a hundred years or so after the start. In case you didn’t notice, the guy I was addressing suggests that most rights in the Constitution are somehow related to voting.

[str8cashhomie]

@CarnalK

Uh huh, both added about a hundred years or so after the start. In case you didn’t notice, the guy I was addressing suggests that most rights in the Constitution are somehow related to voting.

Everything in the constitution has equal weight regardless of when it was added. A constitutional right is a constitutional right, doesn’t matter if it was agreed in the constitutional convention or hundreds of years later.

[CarnalK]

Yeah, that’s true. Now, pull up the USC on your screen. Search for the word ‘right’. Count and locate the hits. Notic how many cover voting.

[str8cashhomie]

@CarnalK

Yeah, that’s true. Now, pull up the USC on your screen. Search for the word ‘right’. Count and locate the hits. Notic how many cover voting.

This is true, the word “most” was wrong. However it is also wrong to say that the right to vote is “unspecified” or not seriously protected by the constitution. Frankly there aren’t more amendments about it because the ones on the books cast a wide net.

[CarnalK]

A wide net that apparently has a few holes in it.

[RioRico]

@CarnalK

A wide net that apparently has a few holes in it.

VOTIES, RIGHTS, US CONSTITUTION - a few extracts (and comments)

Constitution of the United States

ARTICLE V
The Congress… shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or… shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified…

(The Amendment articles are part and parcel of the Constitution.)
__

ARTICLE I, SECTION 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States…

ARTICLE XVII - Amendment 17
1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years…

(The US republic’s representatives, both chambers, are to be elected by the people. By voting. Folks disliking democracy have other options. But funny… few people seem anxious to emigrate to non-democratic republics.)
__

ARTICLE XV - Amendment 15
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(That’s pretty general except for women, the poor, under-21s, and Native Americans. The trick here and below is getting Congress to pass and enforce “appropriate legislation”.)

ARTICLE XIX - Amendment 19
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

(Women get to vote. More generally, citizens of any sex get to vote.)

ARTICLE XXIV - Amendment 24

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

(Poor folks get to vote, too, but only on Federal election or primary days.)

ARTICLE XXVI - Amendment 26
1: The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

(Eve Of Destruction drove this one: “You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’.”)
__

ARTICLE XIV - Amendment 14
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

(This still denied votes to Native Americans; citizenship awaited a 1924 law.)

2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers… But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any… inhabitants of such State, being… of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced…

(Denying voting rights means losing representatives i.e. clout. So don’t.)
__

OTHER ENUMERATED RIGHTS

ARTICLE I: …securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

(The following instances of the word ‘right’ not associated with ‘vote’ are found in amendments. Those disliking amendments can chuck-em.)

• Amendment I: …right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
• Amendment IV: …right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
• Amendment V: …right of the people to keep and bear Arms…
• Amendment VI: …right to a speedy and public [criminal] trial…
• Amendment VII: …right of [common law] trial by jury…
• Amendment XX: [“rights of choice” of Congress to replace a dead president and VP]

Sorry if I miscounted ‘rights’ in a prior post. Enumerated rights not about voting are: one right for creators, five for the people, and one for Congress. Another five rights specify voting. Legislators are specifically to be chosen by the voters. I’d say these articles establish voting rights in this democratic republic. YMMV.
__

Back to topic: WE CAN’T TRUST GOVERNMENTS THAT RIG ELECTIONS AND EXCLUDE VOTERS. That’s the fast answer. DON’T EMPOWER LOSERS. That’s even faster.

How to cleanse US federal, state, and local governments and restore trust? Start by killing gerrymandering, punishing voter suppression, and counting votes honestly. Stalin uttered an uncomfortable truth: IT’S NOT WHO VOTES THAT MATTERS; IT’S WHO COUNTS THE VOTES.

Then probe every politician’s finances; reveal who owns them. And then… sorry, I have no comprehensive program. Not a candidate.

[RioRico]

@Sage_Rat

In a democracy, the desires of the people rule the day. The law is the mandate of the people.

In a republic, a minority of professionals in governance have a clear duty and job to execute the laws and see to it that they are faithfully followed.

Incorrect. ‘Republic’ is a form of government run by representatives rather than royalty or priests. ‘Democracy’ is a method of selecting those representatives rather than by inheritance (as in the Venetian Republic) or lots.

In a democratic republic where the the emphasis has moved from the latter word to the former, [1] the representatives in government are fearful of acting without the approval of the people, [2] while the people look to the representatives to tell them which way they should be cheering for.

[1] Elected officials SHOULD fear acting against the interests and approval of their constituents. “The consent of the governed,” it’s called. Otherwise it’s tyranny.

[2] Speak for yourself, please. I despise the notions and actions of my sleazy congresscritter and most county supervisors, deeply-embedded in old-boy networks of self-serving favor. Like the Venetian Republic. I do not look to them, or any political figure, for guidance. YMMV.

I mentioned before: Migrants seem to head for democratic republics or parliamentary states rather than the alternatives. I don’t see mass influxes on the borders of most of the world’s 200+ ‘republics’. Those who dislike democracy can skip the crowds.

[Hari_Seldon]

A propos the question of whether the public favors impeachment, the Votemaster has this (emphasis in the original):

The current impeachment fervor has been going on for a week or so, which is long enough for a number of polls of the question to have been produced. The latest is from CNN/SSRS, and covers the timespan from Sept. 24-29, which means that the substantive allegations against Trump were publicly known for the entire run of the poll. It may well be the worst poll for the President yet, when it comes to his current crisis, as 47% of respondents say they support impeachment and removal from office, as compared to 45% who don’t feel that way.

Probably about equal within the usual margin of errors in such polls. But already half the population who care, have already rendered their verdict. Assuming more solid evidence emerges, this should increase significantly.