ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Congressional hearings , donald trump , impeachment , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 31st July 2019, 11:43 PM   #121
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,162
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The Dems are on the majority of American's side on most things. Most Americans want abortions to be legal, most Americans want gay marriage to be legal, most Americans want paths for citizenship for immigrants, most Americans agree Trump needs to wear longer ties, etc. So you know they could just do those things but.... like with some balls instead of jumping into their unpopular pet projects.
And instead of those issues, the Democrats are running on decriminalizing the border, benefits for illegals and medicare for all with no private insurance, three things that most Americans emphatically do not want.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 12:03 AM   #122
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,431
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
And instead of those issues, the Democrats are running on decriminalizing the border, benefits for illegals and medicare for all with no private insurance, three things that most Americans emphatically do not want.
1) decriminalizing the border - no, they're not. They are looking at rationalising it so that it works better, more cost-effectively. They certainly aren't going to ignore the bad guys or make it any easier for them. You might remember: Obama deported great numbers of genuine illegals back to Mexico.

2) benefits for illegals - What you are thinking of is "rights for refugees and asylum seekers". Unless you think refugees and asylum seekers should have none?

3) medicare for all with no private insurance - I haven't seen any Dem candidates suggest this at all. I've seen LOTS of variants ranging from "Obamacare Mk2" through to "proper single payer with private insurance option" (which is what is common in the rest of the developed world). There are a million-and-one ways to achieve this. Let the debate begin - hopefully something suitable for the USA will emerge. ANYTHING has got to be better than the current system.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 12:37 AM   #123
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 986
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
And instead of those issues, the Democrats are running on decriminalizing the border, benefits for illegals and medicare for all with no private insurance, three things that most Americans emphatically do not want.
Decriminalizing the border. What the heck is *that* supposed to mean? The border is criminal?

More seriously. Trump and co have effectively criminalized the *legal* act of seeking asylum. The Dems merely want to go back to treating asylum applicants as the US had done for decades prior to the white supremacist take-over of the White House.

Benefits for illegals? Not for the true illegals, who would be turned back. For those *legally* following the process, why not extend something of the human kindness already bestowed upon *all* other citizens as proposed by the Libs? The crazed rejection of this humanity by the Right seems to be predicated upon the *continuance* of the current neglect of the poorest citizens while non-citizens are handed all manner of assistance. Decent leaders see the good treatment of *all* people living in the country as a common right.

I highly doubt there's a widespread desire to do away with private insurance; a few of the more radical voices are not indicative of the mainstream policy ideas. But even if such came to pass, would that really be the end-of-civilization scenario the Right is trying to scare everyone with? What's better? Costly insurance for some and none for the rest, or coverage for *everyone*? Anyway, the system will do fine with universal coverage *and* private insurance for those who desire it.

Gawd, but the Right sure does run around with their hair on fire whenever the matter of treating people as humans comes up. Nations far less rich than the US does all this already!

The US pumps 54% of all discretionary spending into the military. That's more money than spent by the next 7 competing nations COMBINED. How about cutting this down to half? You'd still be far ahead of number two. And the freed funds would work wonders for infrastructure, health care, education, etc.

When I say that the US is in decline, this matter of obscene wastage on the military is one looming reason. It's just freaking insane. A nation obsessed with weaponry, all the way down to personal ownership of guns. One might be forgiven for being given to think that USAians collectively are either paranoid or bullies. Too worried about 'safety', and wielding their big stick, to think sanely and humanely.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 12:42 AM   #124
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
1) decriminalizing the border - no, they're not. They are looking at rationalising it so that it works better, more cost-effectively. They certainly aren't going to ignore the bad guys or make it any easier for them. You might remember: Obama deported great numbers of genuine illegals back to Mexico.

2) benefits for illegals - What you are thinking of is "rights for refugees and asylum seekers". Unless you think refugees and asylum seekers should have none?

3) medicare for all with no private insurance - I haven't seen any Dem candidates suggest this at all. I've seen LOTS of variants ranging from "Obamacare Mk2" through to "proper single payer with private insurance option" (which is what is common in the rest of the developed world). There are a million-and-one ways to achieve this. Let the debate begin - hopefully something suitable for the USA will emerge. ANYTHING has got to be better than the current system.
What are you talking about now? Why would you say this crap? This is boomer-tier cringe.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 12:48 AM   #125
Baylor
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,975
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Decriminalizing the border. What the heck is *that* supposed to mean? The border is criminal?

More seriously. Trump and co have effectively criminalized the *legal* act of seeking asylum. The Dems merely want to go back to treating asylum applicants as the US had done for decades prior to the white supremacist take-over of the White House.

Benefits for illegals? Not for the true illegals, who would be turned back. For those *legally* following the process, why not extend something of the human kindness already bestowed upon *all* other citizens as proposed by the Libs? The crazed rejection of this humanity by the Right seems to be predicated upon the *continuance* of the current neglect of the poorest citizens while non-citizens are handed all manner of assistance. Decent leaders see the good treatment of *all* people living in the country as a common right.

I highly doubt there's a widespread desire to do away with private insurance; a few of the more radical voices are not indicative of the mainstream policy ideas. But even if such came to pass, would that really be the end-of-civilization scenario the Right is trying to scare everyone with? What's better? Costly insurance for some and none for the rest, or coverage for *everyone*? Anyway, the system will do fine with universal coverage *and* private insurance for those who desire it.

Gawd, but the Right sure does run around with their hair on fire whenever the matter of treating people as humans comes up. Nations far less rich than the US does all this already!

The US pumps 54% of all discretionary spending into the military. That's more money than spent by the next 7 competing nations COMBINED. How about cutting this down to half? You'd still be far ahead of number two. And the freed funds would work wonders for infrastructure, health care, education, etc.

When I say that the US is in decline, this matter of obscene wastage on the military is one looming reason. It's just freaking insane. A nation obsessed with weaponry, all the way down to personal ownership of guns. One might be forgiven for being given to think that USAians collectively are either paranoid or bullies. Too worried about 'safety', and wielding their big stick, to think sanely and humanely.
Boring gish gallop
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 12:58 AM   #126
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,032
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Not Republicans, not Democrats (especially their leadership), not the general public.
"Especially" is the wrong word, here. It only needs, IIRC, 2 more House Democrats to publicly back impeachment to make it a majority.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:12 AM   #127
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Everyone keeps repeating this false equivalence.

Ken Starr hunted and hunted for something to get on Clinton and finally got an unrelated thing to what he started with.

Trump and his family are corrupt, the Russians helped him get elected, and an investigation has turned up multiple attempts at obstructing the investigation.

There is no political equivalence here except the Republicans in the Senate are protecting Trump.
1. Do you know the name of the poster I was debating with?
2. Do you know which one of us first bought up Bill Clinton
3. Other than that they are politically motivated, does it look like I agree that the Clinton impeachment is equivalent to this?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:13 AM   #128
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
"Especially" is the wrong word, here. It only needs, IIRC, 2 more House Democrats to publicly back impeachment to make it a majority.
Don't forget that the Senate is Republican controlled and if it gets to the Senate, it is the Republicans that will control the narrative.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:25 AM   #129
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Don't forget that the Senate is Republican controlled and if it gets to the Senate, it is the Republicans that will control the narrative.
That's not necssarily true. Investigation would be in the House, and the Democrats can paint a picture of an administration so thouroughly corrupt that one need to be in complete denial not to see it - that is reality, after all. Then they pass this poisoned potato to the Goopers in the senate, and they are all forced to take a bite. It would be glorious.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:27 AM   #130
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,032
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Don't forget that the Senate is Republican controlled and if it gets to the Senate, it is the Republicans that will control the narrative.
I'm not forgetting that, I'm specifically arguing against the assertion that Democratic leaders are "especially" against the idea of impeachment.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:38 AM   #131
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Investigation would be in the House, and the Democrats can paint a picture of an administration so thouroughly corrupt that one need to be in complete denial not to see it - that is reality, after all.
I thought that Trump was doing this already.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:42 AM   #132
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I thought that Trump was doing this already.
He - through his minions at FOX - gets to frame the narrative. That's harder to do when you have open congressional hearings.

We saw an example of this with one of the hearings after the Muller report. A woman (Trump voter, because journalists love to interview the silly buggers for some reason) was interviewed about what she thought of the whole affair, and she replied she hadn't known there was anything negative about Trump in the Muller report at all, because they never said so on FOX.

Congressional hearings can have the effect of opening the eyes of people who are in a bubble, and it definitely will fire up the Democratic base, which is absolutely essential for 2020.

Not to mention, it is the morally just thing to do. Trump needs to be held accountable.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 1st August 2019 at 04:43 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:09 AM   #133
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Congressional hearings can have the effect of opening the eyes of people who are in a bubble, and it definitely will fire up the Democratic base, which is absolutely essential for 2020.
You are still ignoring the fact that although the Democrats control the narrative in the HoR, the Republicans can change it once it gets to the Senate.

Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Not to mention, it is the morally just thing to do. Trump needs to be held accountable.
A lot of the discussion in this thread is about timing the impeachment so that it can do the most damage to the Trump administration. That makes this a political matter and not a moral one.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:13 AM   #134
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,125
I think the Dems have a moral imperative to not waste time and resources on a losing battle.

So I guess we'll just strap Trump to one track and 2 hypothetical SCOTUS nominees to the other and fire up the ole' trolley and start taking turns at the track switching station.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:33 AM   #135
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are still ignoring the fact that although the Democrats control the narrative in the HoR, the Republicans can change it once it gets to the Senate.
No, they cannot, at least not easily. The word will already be out, and it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
A lot of the discussion in this thread is about timing the impeachment so that it can do the most damage to the Trump administration. That makes this a political matter and not a moral one.
I'm only discussing the first part in order to sell the necessity of the second part to doubters. The morality of the matter is a top priority for me, along side destroying Trump's legacy in order to prevent this from happening again.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:35 AM   #136
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I think the Dems have a moral imperative to not waste time and resources on a losing battle.

So I guess we'll just strap Trump to one track and 2 hypothetical SCOTUS nominees to the other and fire up the ole' trolley and start taking turns at the track switching station.
Well, unless you're completely wrong, that is.

Since you're not basing your conjecture on any more facts than I am, it's just as likely that I'm right and that not impeaching Trump will lead to Democratic voters defecting at the polls because their representatives aren't taking the fight to Trump. That's what I think will happen if they do not impeach.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:40 AM   #137
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,125
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Since you're not basing your conjecture on any more facts than I am, it's just as likely that I'm right and that not impeaching Trump will lead to Democratic voters defecting at the polls because their representatives aren't taking the fight to Trump. That's what I think will happen if they do not impeach.
People keep saying some variation on "Oh well you're just guessing" as if

A) Support for impeachment on a party and public level is some unknown quantity. I guess if you really want to be utterly pedantic for no reason you could demand I prove that doing something the voters don't want is politically risky.

B) "Well were all just guessing so let's do it my way" makes any sense. If it's all just random conjecture I'm still going to go with the one that doesn't waste time and resources in a futile effort.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:47 AM   #138
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
People keep saying some variation on "Oh well you're just guessing" as if

A) Support for impeachment on a party and public level is some unknown quantity. I guess if you really want to be utterly pedantic for no reason you could demand I prove that doing something the voters don't want is politically risky.
Support for impeachment is going up all the time. A few more congresspeople and there will be a majority of Democrats in Congress that wants to impeach. Public support comes from politicians in this case. The reason that it's low is that party leadership has been telling people it's too risky. When that changes, so will opinion.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
B) "Well were all just guessing so let's do it my way" makes any sense. If it's all just random conjecture I'm still going to go with the one that doesn't waste time and resources in a futile effort.
You're guessing it'll waste time and resources in a futile effort. I'm guessing it won't.

ETA: I think not impeaching Trump will be far more damaging than impeaching and failing to get a conviction. The reason, of course, is that the people who want Trump impeached now, many of whom came out for the first time in 2020, many young, many African American, will not be enthusiastic about voting for a party that had the chance to hold Donald Trump accountable but didn't have the guts to.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

Last edited by uke2se; 1st August 2019 at 05:53 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 08:43 AM   #139
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Boring gish gallop
You have no ******* clue what a gish gallop is as you posted this in response to a post addressing another, in which he took it item by item. If you're calling this a gish gallop, then you have to call the original post a gish gallop. Since you didn't, because it's not, I'm calling out your ********.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
A lot of the discussion in this thread is about timing the impeachment so that it can do the most damage to the Trump administration. That makes this a political matter and not a moral one.
Removing Trump is a matter of both, political and moral.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
People keep saying some variation on "Oh well you're just guessing" as if

A) Support for impeachment on a party and public level is some unknown quantity. I guess if you really want to be utterly pedantic for no reason you could demand I prove that doing something the voters don't want is politically risky.

B) "Well were all just guessing so let's do it my way" makes any sense. If it's all just random conjecture I'm still going to go with the one that doesn't waste time and resources in a futile effort.
What's it called when you come to a conclusion based on nothing other than your opinions, then deem it as fact, then use it to support your other opinions? Uhm, it's a...uhm. Oh yeah, confirmation bias!

As you have even pointed out, impeachment for Nixon was low as well. It generally, probably, is low to begin with. Until the curtain is pulled back, we really won't know the extent of what Trump has done. A few of these people have seen less redacted reports from Mueller. Do you think that might change an opinion or two?
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 08:50 AM   #140
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,125
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
As you have even pointed out, impeachment for Nixon was low as well. It generally, probably, is low to begin with. Until the curtain is pulled back, we really won't know the extent of what Trump has done. A few of these people have seen less redacted reports from Mueller. Do you think that might change an opinion or two?
Nixon isn't Trump.
The 1973 Congress isn't the 2019 Congress.
The 1973 SCOTUS isn't the 2019 SCOTUS.
And the 1973 political landscape sure as Shinola ain't the 2019 political landscape.

You're accusing me of confirmation bias but your entire plan is "Do the exact same thing in radically different, almost to the point of exact opposite, circumstances and expect the same results."

And you miss your own distinction in your post. The "Curtain" is already back on Trump. Hell it was never there.

Nixon went down because what he did made it into the public consciousness. That's what took him down. Trump's supporters know what he did, they just don't care, or worse support it. That's a completely different problem to solve.

Nixon couldn't "shoot someone in the middle of Time Square and get away with it."

That makes a difference.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 1st August 2019 at 08:52 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 08:54 AM   #141
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Nixon isn't Trump.
The 1973 Congress isn't the 2019 Congress.
The 1973 SCOTUS isn't the 2019 SCOTUS.
And the 1973 political landscape sure as Shinola ain't the 2019 political landscape.
Cool story bro.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And you miss your own distinction in your post. The "Curtain" is already back on Trump. Hell it was never there.
What? That's not even close to true and actually flies in the face of reality. This has been the least transparent administration in the last 50 years. We haven't seen taxes, we haven't seen visitor logs, and a million other things. I have no idea where you got this from.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Nixon went down because what he did made it into the public consciousness. That's what took him down. Trump's supporters know what he did, they just don't care. That's a completely different problem to solve.
No idea why you keep bringing up Trump supporters. They wouldn't be the target audience fella. The target audience would be fence sitters, people that still have morals, independents, law and order libertarians, etc. We all, every one of us, knows that Trump supporters are going to continue to support him.

Have we got this out of the way now?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Nixon couldn't "shoot someone in the middle of Time Square and get away with it."

That makes a difference.
Trump has definitely been slippery so far, but not holding him responsible using every means necessary when, as you say, it's so blatant is just pathetic. It's weak, undisciplined, and certainly not what we as Americans should be standing for as a whole.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 09:10 AM   #142
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,125
Listen I'm really not getting why I'm getting so much attitude here.

I don't think the Dems have anywhere near a strong enough hand to raise the pot right now, nothing more, nothing less.

If your goal is to appeal to the fence sitters and independents this "Agree with me about everything or be the enemy" cause purity seems like the least effective strategy.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 09:51 AM   #143
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
No, they cannot, at least not easily. The word will already be out, and it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
I have news for you. The word is already out. Trump has tweeted many of them.

Sure, if impeachment is debated in the house, his misdeeds are going to be recited ad nauseum and it may turn some voters. However, the Senate will be able to turn the debate back on the Democrats. You can expect a lot of debate about "witch hunts", "fake news", "perjured testimony" and the like. The Senate should be able to play it as a desperate attempt by Democrats to deny the voters their rights.

Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Public support comes from politicians in this case. The reason that it's low is that party leadership has been telling people it's too risky. When that changes, so will opinion.
Yes, that aspect might get the Democrats more votes but it will still depend on how smart the Republican Senators are.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 10:03 AM   #144
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Listen I'm really not getting why I'm getting so much attitude here.
You're getting equally as much as you give I guess.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't think the Dems have anywhere near a strong enough hand to raise the pot right now, nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps that's the problem. You keep stating your thoughts and opinions as if they're factually based. One of my points is that you don't know what the Dems hand actually is and there would be a lot more to come out if the impeachment hearings commence. Including requiring people to testify under oath. We've seen stories change when people are sworn in, and I think that would happen here as well.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If your goal is to appeal to the fence sitters and independents this "Agree with me about everything or be the enemy" cause purity seems like the least effective strategy.
Another strawman? Seriously, how many need to be built? There has to be a field of them somewhere by now.

No one "on our side" is saying that anymore than you are. No need to be the victim here.

ETA: I thought my previous post did a fairly good job at laying out the specifics of my argument without being condescending, but that's how the ball bounces I guess.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 1st August 2019 at 11:10 AM. Reason: Sorry, I realized that wasn't reading the way I had meant it to
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 10:24 AM   #145
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,089
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You originally stated that impeachment was mandated by the constitution and that there is precedent for this.
Not exactly, no. I was providing the sort of narrative that I thought Democrats should use to make their case to the American people if indeed they think that Trump's actions have risen/fallen to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Personally, I think Trump's transgressions identified in the Special Counsel's report easily meet the suggestion by the Framers of "other high crimes and misdemeanors." (Wouldn't surprise me in the least if charges of treason and bribery could be justified in Trump's case too.) Specifically, Mueller spelled out perjury and obstruction of justice. Anyone looking for legal precedent for perjury and obstruction to be offenses grave enough to warrant impeachment need look no further that the Clinton impeachment.

It doesn't matter that the House was GOP-controlled at the time and it doesn't matter that you and I might agree that it was a highly partisan effort by the House. What matters is solely that perjury and obstruction were established as grave enough to warrant impeachment in the most recent example we have of a presidential impeachment. To my knowledge, there was no impeachment appeal or secondary investigation that resulted in Clinton's impeachment being ruled unConstitutional. Therefore, it stands as a precedent for legitimate impeachment, no matter how highly partisan it was.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 10:37 AM   #146
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,125
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
You keep stating your thoughts and opinions as if they're factually based.
That must be easy to think when you assume your thoughts and opinions are facts and everybody else's aren't.

Not getting why you're acting like you're coming at this from an area of expertise or perspective greater than mine.

Or is this just another case of "You don't phrase your disagreements with me with groveling 'these are just my opinion' so I'm gonna pretend you're somehow trying to create reality with your words."

Of course everything I'm saying is "just my opinion" same as you. I don't have to point that out every other sentence (which I should not you don't do either.)

You haven't gone out of your way to present your statements as "just your opinion" either but I'm not claiming you're trying to pass off opinions as facts.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 11:20 AM   #147
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That must be easy to think when you assume your thoughts and opinions are facts and everybody else's aren't.

Not getting why you're acting like you're coming at this from an area of expertise or perspective greater than mine.
I'm not, and that has been my point. WE, you and I, don't have the expertise because we don't have all of the facts. What's a way to get more of the facts, and more information? You guessed it, impeachment proceedings!!!!

The difference between us is one of us is saying "We should do that, I'd like more information very much", while the other is saying "Whatever is in there, we shouldn't bother with it until we see how the next election shakes out". Which I think is weak, and cowardly.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Or is this just another case of "You don't phrase your disagreements with me with groveling 'these are just my opinion' so I'm gonna pretend you're somehow trying to create reality with your words."
I swear I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Of course everything I'm saying is "just my opinion" same as you. I don't have to point that out every other sentence (which I should not you don't do either.)

You haven't gone out of your way to present your statements as "just your opinion" either but I'm not claiming you're trying to pass off opinions as facts.
I use words like "I believe", and "in my opinion" littered throughout my posts. You post matter of factly. I'm not quibbling over semantics. You have stated this exact position, that the Dem's moving forward with impeachment would ensure Trump a victory, in more than one thread as a statement.

In any case, we'll move on. Given the information that could come to light, why, in your opinion of course, would you rather wait? If the Dem's do wait, Trump loses the election, and the Dem's take power, what would be the actions then? Go to the courts? What if he gets pardoned? Do we still get the information? I honestly don't know the answer to that. I want that transparency. I want all of the details. What if Trump wins anyway and the Dem's lose the House and don't get the Senate? Then they're literally ******. There's no path forward because they don't have power in the committees.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 01:26 PM   #148
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Not exactly, no.

Exactly, yes.
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Still, the thing I keep coming back to – perhaps idealistically – is this: if there are grounds for impeachment, i.e., there is legitimate reason to believe that the Executive Branch is in any way compromised, then it is the Constitutional duty of Congress to impeach. Regardless of timing, polling, etc., the Constitution says that if x happens, y needs to follow.
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
It doesn't matter that the House was GOP-controlled at the time and it doesn't matter that you and I might agree that it was a highly partisan effort by the House.
What are you talking about? That's the only thing that matters at the presidential level. Impeachment will always be a partisan decision with voting mostly along party lines.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 02:41 PM   #149
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,580
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
I'm not, and that has been my point. WE, you and I, don't have the expertise because we don't have all of the facts. What's a way to get more of the facts, and more information? You guessed it, impeachment proceedings!!!!
My understanding is that Congress can initiate investigations, with broad subpoena powers, at will. They can call witnesses, compel disclosures, and do a bunch of other stuff to get more facts and information, without necessarily having to do it in the form of impeachment proceedings.

So I don't currently buy the idea that they have to impeach to find out whether they have a basis for impeachment. I think they could probably open preliminary investigations to get the info they need, and then impeach (or not) once they have that info.

But I could be wrong on this, and would welcome correction from someone who knows better than I.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 02:44 PM   #150
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,075
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My understanding is that Congress can initiate investigations, with broad subpoena powers, at will. They can call witnesses, compel disclosures, and do a bunch of other stuff to get more facts and information, without necessarily having to do it in the form of impeachment proceedings.
It's my understanding that Trump has gone out of his way to get refuse or deny every subpoena, including those to his aides, lawyers, etc. So, then what?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
So I don't currently buy the idea that they have to impeach to find out whether they have a basis for impeachment.
Good, I didn't say they HAD to do a damn thing. I said they would get a lot more information if they did as it becomes a legal procedure. Again, as I understand it.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think they could probably open preliminary investigations to get the info they need, and then impeach (or not) once they have that info.
Is that not part of "impeachment proceedings"? Maybe I'm confused but I picked those words for a reason.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But I could be wrong on this, and would welcome correction from someone who knows better than I.
You and I both, sir. You and I both.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 03:07 PM   #151
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,580
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
It's my understanding that Trump has gone out of his way to get refuse or deny every subpoena, including those to his aides, lawyers, etc. So, then what?
Then impeachment proceedings will run into the same brick wall anyway.

Quote:
Good, I didn't say they HAD to do a damn thing. I said they would get a lot more information if they did as it becomes a legal procedure. Again, as I understand it.



Is that not part of "impeachment proceedings"? Maybe I'm confused but I picked those words for a reason.
My understanding is that all Congressional inquiries are legal procedures, and that an impeachment inquiry is on the same legal basis as any other.

Actually, looking at the Constitution, it seems that "impeachment", as such, is the part of the process where the House votes to make a case to the Senate that the President should be removed from office, and then proceeds to make that case.

The information used to support that case would be acquired by the House through its normal Congressional powers of investigation. That part of it, investigating and assembling information, is not strictly part of the impeachment itself.

Quote:
You and I both, sir. You and I both.
Well, if you are saying that Congress should use its investigatory powers to build a case for impeachment, and calling that part of the "impeachment process", then I agree. Depending on context, I might make a distinction between the investigation and the impeachment itself, but I don't think it's important here.

Sorry for the churn.

Carry on!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 04:55 PM   #152
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,089
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What are you talking about?
Can't tell if we're talking past each other or you're being intentionally obtuse.

Article 2 lays out treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as justification for impeachment (with conviction of same resulting in removal from office).

This language is purposefully vague, making it incumbent on Representatives favoring impeachment proceedings to make their case and put the question to a vote. You are correct that decisions to proceed with impeachment or not are perhaps universally a function of partisan politics, i.e., parties in opposition to the President make the political decision to proceed, those in the President's party make the decision not to.

It is precisely because of the political posturing that plays into these actions that I would want to see Democrats who favor impeachment to make their case as Constitutionally-grounded as possible, but the obvious question is whether there's a credible case to be made that the President might have engaged in treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. The most recent impeachment we have to set precedent established perjury and obstruction beneath that umbrella, and those are the primary offenses Mueller worked so hard to not decide about in Trump's case.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st August 2019, 05:12 PM   #153
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,250
I kind of think Pelosi is seeing things my way. She's going to resist until she can't and then give in just in time for Trump to have to campaign during the hearings.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 12:59 AM   #154
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,032
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't think the Dems have anywhere near a strong enough hand to raise the pot right now, nothing more, nothing less.
And an impeachment inquiry gives them more legal power to gather evidence. I don't know where you're expecting a "strong enough hand" to come from if they don't have a proper inquiry.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 01:03 AM   #155
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,032
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Sure, if impeachment is debated in the house, his misdeeds are going to be recited ad nauseum and it may turn some voters. However, the Senate will be able to turn the debate back on the Democrats. You can expect a lot of debate about "witch hunts", "fake news", "perjured testimony" and the like. The Senate should be able to play it as a desperate attempt by Democrats to deny the voters their rights.
The thing I dislike about this argument is the implied "so he should just be allowed to get away with it". When it becomes possible to avoid even being investigated for crimes simply because of the fear that the public might believe the target of the investigation when they say "no, you!", when "fake news" becomes a legitimate effective defence, that's when you know your political and legal systems are irreparably broken.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 01:17 AM   #156
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,032
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My understanding is that all Congressional inquiries are legal procedures, and that an impeachment inquiry is on the same legal basis as any other.

Actually, looking at the Constitution, it seems that "impeachment", as such, is the part of the process where the House votes to make a case to the Senate that the President should be removed from office, and then proceeds to make that case.

The information used to support that case would be acquired by the House through its normal Congressional powers of investigation. That part of it, investigating and assembling information, is not strictly part of the impeachment itself.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-pow...iry-give-house

Quote:
Impeachment proceedings may also give the judiciary committee a stronger case for obtaining certain materials protected from disclosure by statute, like the grand jury materials from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, certain people—including the government attorney presenting the case—involved in a grand jury proceeding “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” There are certain exceptions in the statute that would allow a judge to authorize disclosure for certain specified purposes, including “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”

As we wrote on Lawfare last month, there is some historical precedent for the House judiciary committee to obtain such information from the court—most notably in the context of the Watergate impeachment proceedings. The relevant court opinion relied largely on a theory of inherent judicial authority, rather than an exception in statute, to turn the Watergate “road map” over to the House judiciary committee.

But on April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that judges don’t have inherent authority to release grand jury materials and must instead rely solely on exceptions outlined in Rule 6(e). So if the committee wishes to access that information, Nadler will likely need to convince the judge overseeing the Mueller grand jury that release of materials to the committee is “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” Bottom line: It is easier to argue that an open impeachment proceeding is akin to a “judicial proceeding” than it is to argue that any run-of-the-mill oversight activities are preliminary to a judicial proceeding.

There are also important questions about whether impeachment proceedings would produce compliance with congressional subpoenas—by either the executive branch or the courts.

The White House’s principal justification for its current stonewalling strategy for ongoing House investigations would not be relevant in the context of impeachment. On April 24, the president told reporters, “We’re fighting all of the subpoenas,” and Cipollone’s May 15 letter supplies various legal arguments in support of this approach. First, the letter relies heavily on the argument that there is no legitimate “legislative purpose” for the request. (Congress’s general investigative powers are derived from its power to legislate.) Whatever the merits of this argument, it would simply not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings, because the power to impeach is contained in an entirely separate and discrete section of the U.S. Constitution.

Second, the letter argues that even if a legitimate legislative purpose can be articulated, committees have limited authority to explore in detail any particular case of alleged wrongdoing, because Congress does not need such details in order to craft legislative fixes. Again, this would likewise not be relevant in the context of impeachment proceedings. The decision of whether to impeach requires the development of a detailed, backward-looking factual record of specific conduct by the president. While it is of course possible the White House could come up with different theories for stonewalling in the context of impeachment proceedings, these two arguments would fall away, leaving only arguments related to executive privilege to be made before the courts.

Beyond the substance, it’s unclear whether courts would consider and decide such cases more quickly in the context of impeachment proceedings than similar cases pursued under the Congress’s investigative authority. One district court judge expedited consideration of one of the current investigative impasses—the House oversight and reform committee’s quest for Trump’s financial and accounting records from Mazars—and ruled in favor of the committee. Trump has already appealed the case, and it is unclear how long this appeal and similar appeals will take. Moreover, the case does not involve any claims of executive privilege. Sorting out the scope of executive privilege is the most thorny and time-consuming issue in cases involving congressional requests for information from the executive branch.

We think it is entirely possible—probable even—that judges would recognize the primacy of impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States and expedite consideration of such cases. The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt, but we think it reasonable to assume courts would take a similarly expeditious view in the context of a subpoena issued pursuant to impeachment proceedings. Of course, it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court has never decided a case concerning a congressional subpoena for information issued to an executive branch official where the president has asserted executive privilege. In theory, the Supreme Court could decide the issue is a political question and leave it to the other two branches to sort out in some other way.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 03:10 AM   #157
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,580
NVM

Last edited by theprestige; 2nd August 2019 at 03:12 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 03:14 AM   #158
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,032
https://twitter.com/politico/status/1156912494457364480

Quote:
More than half of all House Democrats now want to pursue impeachment proceedings, a threshold that may cause Speaker Nancy Pelosi to reconsider her steadfast opposition
Article embedded in tweet.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 10:04 AM   #159
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,177
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
The thing I dislike about this argument is the implied "so he should just be allowed to get away with it". When it becomes possible to avoid even being investigated for crimes simply because of the fear that the public might believe the target of the investigation when they say "no, you!", when "fake news" becomes a legitimate effective defence, that's when you know your political and legal systems are irreparably broken.
Like it or not, it all comes down to votes. If impeachment doesn't get the Dems more votes then it will not proceed.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2019, 10:42 AM   #160
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,076
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Like it or not, it all comes down to votes. If impeachment doesn't get the Dems more votes then it will not proceed.
Dems need to push the fact that Trump is a seriously compromised individual heading up a seriously compromised administration, and that they are an ongoing threat to our national security, e.g. refusing to act to prevent foreign intrusion on our elections, and the shady stuff like the Saudi nuclear deal and lifting sanctions on Russian oligarchs, to name a few. That works for both a reason to impeach and a reason to burn the Party of Trump to the ground in 2020.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.