Continuation House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by varwoche

There's all sorts of things wrong here.

First, there are many motivations at play. Checks and balances. Constitutional duty. Retaining seat. Partisan gain. Personal animosity. A mix of these factors. This is obvious based on human nature and the large number of people we're talking about.

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer. Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer. Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

Trump is accused of putting personal interest over national interest. The evidence is pretty persuasive. Thus, he ought to be impeached. Failure to do so is an abdication of duty.

He ought to be removed too[1], but that's out of the hands of the Democrats. If the Republicans do not remove him, then they've failed to do their duty, but that's on them, not the Democrats.

As divisive as impeachment is, ignoring a serious abuse of power and treating it as business as usual, worthy of nothing more than condemnation, is a worse option.

[1] I will admit that perhaps some evidence will come forth changing my mind on this. Let's wait and see.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

I didn't get beyond searching on the internet, but you weren't welcoming. They wanted people who had job skills. May have been worried about the effect us oldsters would have on the health care system.

Originally Posted by Bob001

Canada gives immigration applicants points for education, work and language skills, assets etc., and you don't get in without enough points. Each province has its own requirements. Retirees don't get a lot of points, even if you've got money in the bank. I'm sure there must be work-arounds, but I suspect they could be expensive and time-consuming. You don't just drive a Uhaul across the border and buy a house.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration...te-canada.html

Thanks for the info, guys. I didn't realize we were so picky.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Trump is accused of putting personal interest over national interest. The evidence is pretty persuasive. Thus, he ought to be impeached. Failure to do so is an abdication of duty.

He ought to be removed too[1], but that's out of the hands of the Democrats. If the Republicans do not remove him, then they've failed to do their duty, but that's on them, not the Democrats.

As divisive as impeachment is, ignoring a serious abuse of power and treating it as business as usual, worthy of nothing more than condemnation, is a worse option.

[1] I will admit that perhaps some evidence will come forth changing my mind on this. Let's wait and see.

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

As long as the goals of the Dems and the Constitution are aligned, the question is irrelevant.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by eerok

Thanks for the info, guys. I didn't realize we were so picky.

Most western countries are actually quite discriminating, about who they let in.

[varwoche]

Originally Posted by phiwum

... But it doesn't matter to me whether the Democrats' hearts are pure as the driven snow, selflessly pursuing justice against all self-interest or whether they are devious Machiavellans, seeking impeachment only out of selfish considerations. What matters to me is what Trump did and whether it is an abuse of his office.

Exactly. If purity of heart matters, we're in permanent trouble.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

As long as the goals of the Dems and the Constitution are aligned, the question is irrelevant.

Humor me.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Humor me.

Give me a reason to.
Give me a scenario in which the motives of the Dems are so bad that following the Constitution would be the wrong thing to do.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question.

1. Removal of Trump from office. [ETA: (conviction in the Senate)]

2. Defeating Trump in November.

3. Inhibiting future presidents from abusing the office.

If any or all of them are less than 50% probable (and that includes probabilities from .1% to 49%), that is not an argument for not pursuing them. Also, any assigning of probabilities has its own level of uncertainty, as the future is not written. For #2 and 3, impeachment hearing don't have to be the sole factor that achieves #2 or 3, it merely needs to contribute to the effort, so its contribution can be big or small.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

It is difficult to list explicitly all of the duties that the House has in considering impeachment, but these duties include the following: investigating thoroughly, considering evidence fairly, informing the public of the findings, presenting the case competently in the Senate.

This is, more or less, their part in the process. If (or when) Senate Republicans choose to ignore or downplay the evidence or seriousness of the charges, then again, that is their responsibility. Congress has its role and the Senate its.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Give me a reason to.
Give me a scenario in which the motives of the Dems are so bad that following the Constitution would be the wrong thing to do.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't need you to humor me so much that I'm going to bother figuring it out. Instead, I'll leave you with this question: Since impeaching a president for perjury is well in line with the Constitution, does it matter what Graham's reasoning was then, or that he's a hypocrite now?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Trump is accused of putting personal interest over national interest. The evidence is pretty persuasive. Thus, he ought to be impeached. Failure to do so is an abdication of duty.

He ought to be removed too[1], but that's out of the hands of the Democrats. If the Republicans do not remove him, then they've failed to do their duty, but that's on them, not the Democrats.

As divisive as impeachment is, ignoring a serious abuse of power and treating it as business as usual, worthy of nothing more than condemnation, is a worse option.

[1] I will admit that perhaps some evidence will come forth changing my mind on this. Let's wait and see.

I agree.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

The House can be successful only at impeachment. It is the only part of the process they have any jurisdiction over.

A trial in the Senate is an entirely different issue.

There's no real need to conflate the two. House Democrats will have exercised their Constitutional duties as an oversight body, in spite of House Republicans' demented obfuscation.

I see that as a success.

Whether or not it was a good idea politically is a different question as well. Obviously it was one which was considered by Democrat leaders, and I tend to respect them somewhat for doing it in spite of the potential danger to their party's successes in the coming electoral cycle.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by varwoche

The reason I live in WA state is because I tried to move to Canada and they wouldn't let me in. Actually. (Not Canada's fault, not my fault, but the fault of the flakes who were trying to employ me.) Thus began the chapter titled Living in a Motel in White Rock, BC.

Great place to live, White Rock (although maybe not in your circumstances?). 15 minute drive south of our home. We spend a lot of time there.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Since impeaching a president for perjury is well in line with the Constitution, does it matter what Graham's reasoning was then, or that he's a hypocrite now?

Then Graham matters not a whit, Trump should be impeached.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer. Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

Just like a Rightist, to contemplate an action only if of tangible, selfish benefit.

Can't you conceive that something could be undertaken just because it's the *right* thing to do? Even if it poses a risk of backfiring in the near term?

The Dems know that there's a possibility of the impeachment process, in this highly divided political climate, could have bad consequences for them. But it's deemed of such importance for history to at least try to rein in an out-of-control Executive.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Can't you conceive that something could be undertaken just because it's the *right* thing to do? Even if it poses a risk of backfiring in the near term?

No, he can't, but that isn't really his fault, its the fault of his politics.

"Doing the right thing" is a concept that is entirely alien to those on the right. When you tell a conservative to do something for the benefit of others, you might as well be speaking a foreign language.

Everything in "conservative world" is done for gain; personal gain, or business gain or political gain.

Originally Posted by Lurch

The Dems know that there's a possibility of the impeachment process, in this highly divided political climate, could have bad consequences for them. But it's deemed of such importance for history to at least try to rein in an out-of-control Executive.

This! It is the Dems who are working to the benefit of the future of the US, not Trump.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't need you to humor me so much that I'm going to bother figuring it out. Instead, I'll leave you with this question: Since impeaching a president for perjury is well in line with the Constitution, does it matter what Graham's reasoning was then, or that he's a hypocrite now?

Since Graham is a kind of Juror in Impeachment Trial, it matters quite a bit whether he is going to judge the evidence to the best of his abilities, or whether he is making the choice to let Trump get away with High Crimes he would have convicted Clinton for.
In other words, Graham is Ground Zero evidence for the Senate doing its job or just playing party politics.

[Minoosh]

I've seen these questions - "What is the goal? What would count as success?" - used in ways that sound reasonable, but that can also be used as a kind of "gotcha." If someone asks why you're doing something, "Because it's the right thing to do" counts as a reasonable response. But that doesn't answer the question, "What is the purpose?" And I think various such devices can be used to obfuscate.

I don't make any grand claims to be an expert in critical thinking, but it seems to come pretty naturally to me. What I'm not particularly good at is responding in real time to certain devices that sound good on the surface but tend to bog down saps like me who are trying to discuss things in good faith. A former member here had a device of demanding a yes-or-no answer, with the goal (IMO) of making respondents seem evasive when they attempted a nuanced answer. (Meanwhile he just ignored any question he didn't like). This can also be framed as, "Before we go any further, let's see what we can agree on ..." followed by such a question.

And what I want to know is, how can I get good at this? Books on critical thinking earnestly spell out a number of common fallacies, but I haven't seen one on how to make specious arguments, or how to bog down a discussion with such devices.

The "why" in impeachment to me is that the process is in the Constitution for a reason, and if Trump's antics don't warrant impeachment, what exactly would? The purpose then being to draw the line for the sake of drawing the line. And while I think Bill Clinton definitely lied under oath, I also don't think his behavior seriously damaged the country. Trump has been wiley enough to avoid going under oath, so there's not such a bright line. But he's done a lot worse, IMO, by trashing the norms of the U.S. presidency, by clearly using his powers in a way that benefits him at the expense of U.S. interests.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Paul2

1. Removal of Trump from office. [ETA: (conviction in the Senate)]

2. Defeating Trump in November.

3. Inhibiting future presidents from abusing the office.

These are all possible outcomes down the road, but the primary goal is to determine whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses. The secondary - but (IMO) more important - goal is to make the true nature of those offenses public knowledge. Whether Trump is actually impeached, or defeated at the next election, or future presidents are actually inhibited from abusing the office, is less important than knowing what should have been done.

Personally I don't mind either way. If Trump is not thrown out of office one way or another, and if other presidents use it as a mandate to commit similar offenses, that simply justifies the more direct actions we will be forced to take. Sometimes I even wish for it, because then I would be free to treat conservatives like the scum they would have proven themselves to be.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

"Doing the right thing" is a concept that is entirely alien to those on the right...

Everything in "conservative world" is done for gain; personal gain, or business gain or political gain.

To be fair, in "conservative world" that is "doing the right thing".

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Just like a Rightist, to contemplate an action only if of tangible, selfish benefit.

Can't you conceive that something could be undertaken just because it's the *right* thing to do? Even if it poses a risk of backfiring in the near term?

The Dems know that there's a possibility of the impeachment process, in this highly divided political climate, could have bad consequences for them. But it's deemed of such importance for history to at least try to rein in an out-of-control Executive.

And therein lies your problem. Were my children in some precarious position, I would have no hesitation laying down my life to protect them. You seem to want to develop a cost benefit spreadsheet before making any decision at all. By the time you did that your children would be already dead.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

"We can give a pass on Republican hypocrisy because Democrats might employ the exact same hypocrisy 30 years from now"


LOL!



That's some nuclear grade whataboutism there, bro.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

These are all possible outcomes down the road, but the primary goal is to determine whether or not Trump has committed impeachable offenses. The secondary - but (IMO) more important - goal is to make the true nature of those offenses public knowledge. Whether Trump is actually impeached, or defeated at the next election, or future presidents are actually inhibited from abusing the office, is less important than knowing what should have been done.

Personally I don't mind either way. If Trump is not thrown out of office one way or another, and if other presidents use it as a mandate to commit similar offenses, that simply justifies the more direct actions we will be forced to take. Sometimes I even wish for it, because then I would be free to treat conservatives like the scum they would have proven themselves to be.

I take your point, but the House Intelligence committee investigation is one of those in which it's clear that Trump committed several offenses, so the investigation is more about filling in the details in order to make a strong case (to the Senate, and to the public).

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think it's 100% an unproven claim. I don't think there's any more reason to believe it than there is to believe Lindsay Graham.

"100% an unproven claim"???

What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean you sincerely believe there's not even a single shred of evidence against Trump???

If that's the case, you're either not being 100% honest or you're not paying 100% attention.

LOL!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

"100% an unproven claim"???

What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean you sincerely believe there's not even a single shred of evidence against Trump???

If that's the case, you're either not being 100% even 5% honest or you're not paying 100% attention to anything but Trump tweets.

LOL!

FTFY

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I think it's 100% an unproven claim. I don't think there's any more reason to believe it than there is to believe Lindsay Graham.

Unproven? What part is unproven? Seriously. This has to be the most ridiculous post.

The hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

[cullennz]

All an impeachment decision will do is result in Trump winning again.

The dems and left media are just too dim to realise.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?"

Realistically, I'd say that bringing the Impeachment would be a success, if they can get a few Republican Senators to actually look at the evidence and vote based on that and not Party over Country, then they will have brought about a wild success. In the current climate I doubt that most Republicans will even be willing to look at the evidence consider censure of the President for his actions.

The best goal really is to at least get an Impeachment so there is some form of indication to future Presidents that the actions of Trump in trying to use his office to obtain a declaration of an investigation looking into a political opponent is unacceptable behaviour.

Quote:

Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer.

Just as well it was never the answer then.

Quote:

Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

If in thirty years time, we have a Democrat President who acts in the same way Trump apparently has, and a house Democrat makes a u-turn on their opinion, then any claims of hypocrisy against that person will be fully justified. However, regardless of the hypocrisy of people like Graham, if a President withholds the duties of his office until he gets an announcement of a criminal investigation into his political opponents, then he should be impeached at minimum because that is not acceptable behaviour. And it honestly doesn't matter the reasons behind that impeachment if the evidence clearly shows that he did it.

It's like, should you ignore the clear evidence of person being a murderer and let him off, just because the person who dobbed him in wants his job?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by cullennz

All an impeachment decision will do is result in Trump winning again.

The dems and left media are just too dim to realise.

This is a test for our democracy. Is the GOP too corrupt to uphold the Constitution? Or should we just bury the nation and its principles?

If this isn't impeachable, what is?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by cullennz

All an impeachment decision will do is result in Trump winning again.

The dems and left media are just too dim to realise.

How exactly will it do that?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

How exactly will it do that?

It plays into his stupid "everyone is just picking on me, with fake...." playbook his fanboys fall for.

The whole media attack thing has been a spectacular self inflicted seeping wound against themselves for years.

Funny to watch though when you have no skin in the game.

He is very good at playing the victim card.

Kind of using the lefts on methods against them.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

"100% an unproven claim"???

What the hell does that even mean? Does it mean you sincerely believe there's not even a single shred of evidence against Trump???

If that's the case, you're either not being 100% honest or you're not paying 100% attention.

LOL!

theprestige was responding to the following statement: "The House Democrats’ goal is upholding the Constitution by acting as a check on executive abuse."

He is claiming that it isn't clear the Democrats are doing this to act as a legitimate check on the president. He didn't say anything about whether there is evidence that the allegations regarding Trump are true.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by phiwum

theprestige was responding to the following statement: "The House Democrats’ goal is upholding the Constitution by acting as a check on executive abuse."

He is claiming that it isn't clear the Democrats are doing this to act as a legitimate check on the president. He didn't say anything about whether there is evidence that the allegations regarding Trump are true.

At best, it's ambiguous, and how separable are the two claims, really? The fact that there is evidence that the allegations against Trump are true simultaneously provides evidence that this is, indeed, a legitimate check on the president.

Only if there were no evidence of the former would there be conclusive (100%!) evidence of the latter.

Of course, good luck getting a straight answer on this supposed ambiguity (or any other relevant matter) from any Trump supporter/apologist.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Watch Trump try to get even with any GOP Senators that vote to impeach him. There will be some that stand up and do the right thing. There might be a couple that have constituents pressuring them to stand up to Trump.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by cullennz

It plays into his stupid "everyone is just picking on me, with fake...." playbook his fanboys fall for.

The whole media attack thing has been a spectacular self inflicted seeping wound against themselves for years.

Funny to watch though when you have no skin in the game.

He is very good at playing the victim card.

Kind of using the lefts on methods against them.

That doesn't explain how he would win though, all you are saying is that those that will vote for him regardless already, will still vote for him after impeachment. The problem he has though is that his base currently isn't large enough to get him reelected.

So how exactly would impeachment change those numbers?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Watch Trump try to get even with any GOP Senators that vote to impeach him.

I can say with 100% certainty that no Senator on either side of the aisle will vote to Impeach him.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I can say with 100% certainty that no Senator on either side of the aisle will vote to Impeach him.

We need a poll. Maybe when it gets closer so people know what the evidence is.

Or we could have one poll now and one later to see who changed their minds.

Sen Sherrod Brown is on CSPAN now reminding us that the Kochs will spend millions to have any GOP Senator primaried who supports climate change prevention legislation.

Isn't it lovely to know a couple of people will be responsible for the greatest risk to the human population ever. Thank goodness there are other countries taking charge.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

That doesn't explain how he would win though, all you are saying is that those that will vote for him regardless already, will still vote for him after impeachment. The problem he has though is that his base currently isn't large enough to get him reelected.

So how exactly would impeachment change those numbers?

I was about to post a similar thought.

For the 50% or so of Americans who now support impeachment and removal, they’ll listen to the impeachment trial, weigh the evidence presented and likely come away more convinced than ever that Trump committed crimes and that at least some of those crimes warrant conviction in the Senate. If the Senate acquits, do you think Trump’s boasting about it will convince them otherwise?

Like PhantomWolf just said, his bleating about “No Corruption! No Collusion! No Quid Pro Quo! I told you it was a witch hunt!” will only play to his base, and hopefully a groundswell of disgust will drive record numbers of Democrats and Independents and disillusioned Republicans to the polls.

We can only hope.