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.
View Poll Results: Is the political nature of impeachment a problem?
Yes 15 33.33%
No 27 60.00%
Planet X 3 6.67%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 27th September 2019, 06:46 AM   #41
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,734
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
This. Impeachment being political isn't the problem; every non-political route deferring to impeachment is the problem.
I think the general idea was that those other routes would become political tools if they were allowed to, and any smaller law enforcement group would then have the full power to potentially tie up or unseat a president based on spurious charges.

I suppose you could say that higher courts resolve that, but then we're putting the power again, in a small number of hands that could be politically motivated.

Impeachment IS totally political, but the idea is that at least it's directed by a large body that supposedly represents the whole country and if 2/3 of the senate really want to axe a president for political reasons, then at least it's what the country as a whole wants (By the same standard that any laws are what the country wants)

I could see us having a similar discussion about whether the system was right if the system were different and if Barack Obama were sitting in an Alabama jail cell on a BS charge.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

Last edited by Cavemonster; 27th September 2019 at 06:51 AM.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 06:49 AM   #42
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,586
The vagueness is necessary, as others have mentioned, specificity would just let a bad actor stay with in the letter of the law but play fast and loose with the intent. Not to mention, the exhaustive list of potential impeachable offenses for the president and every other government official that would need to be compiled.

On Bush II's impeachability
Invading Iraq without UN approval, nobody would impeach on that, I suppose you could try but any congressmen who voted yes wouldn't get re-elected.
Congress gave pretty wide ranging authority for the president wage wars with that authorization for use of force, Obama used it to bomb Libya and Syria and Trump is still using it to bomb god knows where. As it currently stands, its basically an authorization for perpetual war against who ever the president wants to kill.

Authorizing torture, totally impeachable, using false pretenses, even if Bush believed the false pretenses, totally impeachable.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 08:16 AM   #43
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
How can the political nature of impeachment not be a problem if it fails to remove the most corrupt criminal ever to hold the office?
So, elect a new Senate. In fact, you don't even need to elect them. Just make it known that you will not vote for them unless they remove the president. They'll cave. Very few of them actually like Trump.

Of course, I don't mean you specifically. I mean the collective you of the electorate.

Or is the electorate incapable of making the right decision? There are definitely times I agree with that, but I'm not ready to throw out democracy just yet. It's still a better system than all of the others.
Meadmaker 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 09:07 AM   #44
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,569
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Cops have a lot of discretion in deciding whether or not to give you a ticket for speeding, presumably depending on the circumstances. If he does, the judge still has discretion in deciding what the fine should be, if any. Our legal system depends on people with integrity using their discretion honorably.
But therein lies the problem. Most of the time it's true, but not always, and all these things can take time and energy and money. I think it's reasonable for the president to be at least mostly immune during his presidency, because the very problem of politics in impeachment also will intrude in civil and criminal complaints. Even the best presidents have many enemies, at least a few of whom are crazy and fanatical and some in positions of power, and like some of our current leaders, willing to sacrifice all reason, good sense, national welfare and integrity to promote their causes. The impeachment process narrows things down. Of course those of us who dislike our current leader would be happy to have him busted for anything and everything, but even if we're righteous and right, it would be, I think, a bad idea.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 09:08 AM   #45
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, elect a new Senate. In fact, you don't even need to elect them. Just make it known that you will not vote for them unless they remove the president. They'll cave. Very few of them actually like Trump.

Of course, I don't mean you specifically. I mean the collective you of the electorate.

Or is the electorate incapable of making the right decision?
The problem with the idea of "just electing a new senate" is the way senate seats are allocated... 2 to every state, regardless of population, which means that Wyoming (population ~600k) has as much political influence as California (population ~40 million). This means that even if the majority of the electorate want all new (non-corrupted) senators, its possible for a party to get power in the senate even if they only have the support of a minority of voters.

Quote:
There are definitely times I agree with that, but I'm not ready to throw out democracy just yet. It's still a better system than all of the others.
People that are troubled by the current divisions in the country and the corruption of groups like the Senate do not see remedies as "throwing out democracy".

Instead, they see Democracy as already horribly damaged, and want to take actions to restore some basic principles... The idea of equality, fair play, respect for legal norms.

Indeed, the U.S. is no longer ranked as a 'full democracy' by the EIU (a think tank that analyzes the global political situation). Instead, its counted as a 'flawed democracy', falling behind such countries as Norway, Sweeden, Canada, and friggin' Uruguay (a country that was basically a dictatorship as late as the 1980s.) If the United States, a country that is supposedly the "beacon of freedom" gets labeled a 'flawed democracy', then something is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 11:14 AM   #46
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,912
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The problem with the idea of "just electing a new senate" is the way senate seats are allocated... 2 to every state, regardless of population, which means that Wyoming (population ~600k) has as much political influence as California (population ~40 million). This means that even if the majority of the electorate want all new (non-corrupted) senators, its possible for a party to get power in the senate even if they only have the support of a minority of voters.


People that are troubled by the current divisions in the country and the corruption of groups like the Senate do not see remedies as "throwing out democracy".

Instead, they see Democracy as already horribly damaged, and want to take actions to restore some basic principles... The idea of equality, fair play, respect for legal norms.

Indeed, the U.S. is no longer ranked as a 'full democracy' by the EIU (a think tank that analyzes the global political situation). Instead, its counted as a 'flawed democracy', falling behind such countries as Norway, Sweeden, Canada, and friggin' Uruguay (a country that was basically a dictatorship as late as the 1980s.) If the United States, a country that is supposedly the "beacon of freedom" gets labeled a 'flawed democracy', then something is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Heh, you see that the US is rated behind Uruguay in democracy, and your reaction is something is wrong with the US? I'd say something is transparently wrong with the rating system.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 11:19 AM   #47
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,814
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Heh, you see that the US is rated behind Uruguay in democracy, and your reaction is something is wrong with the US? I'd say something is transparently wrong with the rating system.
that shouldn't be your first reaction.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 11:23 AM   #48
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,387
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
that shouldn't be your first reaction.
Probably the appropriate skeptical reaction would be to look into the quality of the rating system, before drawing any conclusions from the ratings.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 11:36 AM   #49
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,814
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Probably the appropriate skeptical reaction would be to look into the quality of the rating system, before drawing any conclusions from the ratings.
yes.
Luckily, they are very transparent.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 11:41 AM   #50
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,901
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Quote:
Indeed, the U.S. is no longer ranked as a 'full democracy' by the EIU (a think tank that analyzes the global political situation). Instead, its counted as a 'flawed democracy', falling behind such countries as Norway, Sweeden, Canada, and friggin' Uruguay (a country that was basically a dictatorship as late as the 1980s.)
Heh, you see that the US is rated behind Uruguay in democracy, and your reaction is something is wrong with the US? I'd say something is transparently wrong with the rating system.
The factors that go into the rankings are mentioned in the wikipedia article. And while they may not be perfect, as the wikipedia article points out they are considered reputable enough to be quoted in academic journals.

The United states currently has the following problems:
- Extremely divided electorate
- Gerrymandering and Voter suppression (which will probably expand in future elections)
- A rollback of certain human rights (such as LGBTQ rights) under Trump
- Approval for Congress is currently below 20%
- Recent voter turnout in presidential elections is below 60%, lagging behind almost every country in North and South Americas

Is it any wonder that the ranking of U.S. democracy has declined under those conditions?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 02:53 PM   #51
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 940
Contributing the the US's poor ranking is the role of Big Money in her politics, where lobbyists set the agenda that increases wealth disparity and hence a disaffection amongst the electorate. Leading to such a pass as hoisting to power as demonstrably an unfit piece of wreckage as Trump.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 03:01 PM   #52
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,764
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post

There is certainly a risk of it becoming politicized. I do note that it seems like since Clinton's impeachment, Democrats have been antsy to use it to get even.

This is obviously true despite unconvincing arguments to the contrary.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 03:02 PM   #53
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,764
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
How about lying to Congress?

How about starting and conducting a war without Congressional or UN permission?
Ahhhh, BDS Never Dies
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 03:49 PM   #54
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,121
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
This is obviously true despite unconvincing arguments to the contrary.
Well the sample size consists of Bush, Obama, and Trump, so...
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 05:13 PM   #55
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,147
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
This. Impeachment being political isn't the problem; every non-political route deferring to impeachment is the problem.

That's pretty much exactly what I said in my first sentence.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 03:20 AM   #56
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,603
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I agree. I think the vague nature of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" is necessary, or else a flagrant offender could simply abide by the letter of each law while committing new and unprecedented enormities.

That it's only been done twice until now speaks well of it not being abused unnecessarily, even in our traditionally fractious political system.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK laws are generally deliberately fairly vague precisely to prevent people from abiding by the letter while breaking the spirit of the law.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 06:07 AM   #57
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,316
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK laws are generally deliberately fairly vague precisely to prevent people from abiding by the letter while breaking the spirit of the law.
But then you end up with an enormous body of case law to establish what the law actually means. Shifting the burden to the courts rather than getting it right on the front end isn't efficiency, it's just moving the work further down the assembly line. And it leads to some wacky results sometimes.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 08:07 AM   #58
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,387
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's A problem, not The problem.

It is definitely a problem that the courts treat the President as immune from everything - there is no basis in law for that.
My understanding of court ruling is they are literally a legal basis. When you say "the courts treat the President as immune", what do you mean? I know that federal law enforcement policy does so, to some extent, but that's the Executive, not the Judiciary.

The courts don't have the authority to proactively initiate prosecution against someone, so their inaction on this point isn't indicative of anything.

And when the proper authorities do bring a case involving the President, the courts do seem to be able to pass judgement. Look at the various legal disputes and court rulings over executive orders, for example.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2019, 08:37 AM   #59
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,814
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My understanding of court ruling is they are literally a legal basis. When you say "the courts treat the President as immune", what do you mean? I know that federal law enforcement policy does so, to some extent, but that's the Executive, not the Judiciary.

The courts don't have the authority to proactively initiate prosecution against someone, so their inaction on this point isn't indicative of anything.

And when the proper authorities do bring a case involving the President, the courts do seem to be able to pass judgement. Look at the various legal disputes and court rulings over executive orders, for example.
your example refers to lawsuits against the President's policies, not the President himself - so let's ignore those.

We have the extensive legal argument by Mueller why he cannot even make a judgement about whether Trump's behavior rises to the level of a crime, because an immunity from indictment also precludes making any kind of decision about making an indictment when immunity no longer applies.
In other words, not only are, according to Mueller's understanding, the courts not allowed to accept an indictment of Trump, prosecutors aren't even allowed to consider whether to make one or not.
This is, in effect, much more than just immunity.
And add to that that Barr claims that whatever Trump is allowed to do by law is by definition never something that can have been done for corrupt purposes.

Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 28th September 2019 at 08:40 AM.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 11:42 AM   #60
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,870
There certainly needs to be political ways for dealing with presidential actions that are not illegal but againsts the interests and good of the nation. I mean imagine all the crap as commander in chief the president could do that the country wouldn't support but there is not law against? Ordering the military to retreat and not fight an invasion force for example. No law against that so not illegal but it would seem that there should be some recourse to change who is commander in chief then.

Now treating all criminal actions by a president as political first and foremost is kind of different. Of course there is no constitutional requirement that the president can not be indicted, it is just justice department policy.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 12:36 PM   #61
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,010
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I watched a great documentary about the financial crisis of 2008. W. talked about his role, at the very end of his presidency, in supporting the (at the time) radical suggestions of the Fed and Treasury. In another doc. about Air Force One on 9/11, W. also gave a lengthy interview recalling his thought process.

It's starting to turn me around a little on his intelligence and input into policy. He certainly surrounded himself with smart (although biased) advisors and relied heavily on that advice. That's more than can be said for Trump.

The only thing I can't forgive him for is the invasion of Iraq. Hussain had already agreed to unconditional nuclear monitoring, even at designated palaces. And the whole "spreading democracy" thing was a complete disaster, requiring almost a willful disregard for the actual conditions in Iraq - the three warring factions that instantly went to war when we went in without any sort of plan (Sunni, Sufi, and Kurds).

But I can't think of an impeachable offense for W.
I'm no fan of George W., but compared to Trump, he looks like a genius and a statesman. I never really bought into the notion he was dumb. A lot of his policies were wrong (especially Iraq), and he made some disastrous appointments (e. g. Rumsfeld) and for the first half or more of his presidency, he was influenced far too much by Cheney, who IMO, was just plain evil, but he had a far better grasp of what being President is all about than the inept buffoon currently holding the office.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 12:44 PM   #62
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,010
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I think you are trivializing the issue to absurd levels.

Nobody is above the law. Of course the President should be open to prosecution. As we have seen, having it otherwise is a guaratee for abuse when you get a bad actor in the role.
I think it is significant that the Constitution explicitly grants immunity to members of Congress, but does not for the President.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 02:00 PM   #63
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,671
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
And add to that that Barr claims that whatever Trump is allowed to do by law is by definition never something that can have been done for corrupt purposes.
This is correct, insofar as corruption is violation of laws by Congress, and we are limited to direct powers granted the president by the Constitution. Congress may not attach strings to exercise of direct powers by other branches except as described explicitely by that same Constitution. This is the source of the mocked statement, "When the president does it, it is not illegal."

There was a similar issue at the state level in Texas where the Democrats tried to get Perry in trouble over a veto, where he threatened to veto a department's money unless they fired some corrupt manager. The law said you can't use veto (or withholding of funds, more directly) to coerce changes, but got tossed because the governor can veto for any reason, no strings attached, even crappy reasons, and the legislature may not control it. (And in this case, the law was also deemed not to apply since, by vetoing the funding, it had not been allocated yet, and so was not being withheld.)

Even bribery, the illegality is on the tit for tat agreement, whether executed or not, and neither the legislature nor the courts have the power to veto, or un-veto (whatever that means) nor deem a law signed (short of override vote, which isn't a signature anyway.)
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 2nd October 2019 at 02:07 PM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 02:12 PM   #64
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I watched a great documentary about the financial crisis of 2008. W. talked about his role, at the very end of his presidency, in supporting the (at the time) radical suggestions of the Fed and Treasury. In another doc.
Do you remember the name of the documentary and is it available for streaming?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 02:14 PM   #65
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,613
Go right ahead and impeach. The basket of deplorables will think twice about selecting such a divisive candidate again.
/sarcasm
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 02:26 PM   #66
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,387
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
Go right ahead and impeach. The basket of deplorables will think twice about selecting such a divisive candidate again.
/sarcasm
Wow, that basket of deplorables concept really did backfire on Hillary, didn't it?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2019, 03:02 PM   #67
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
It's not necessarily bad that it's a political process, but it is a problem if it is universally regarded as *partisan*. The House should go ahead with its inquiries, but in the meantime I hope someone is looking at what it would take to persuade some R's that the process should go forward.

I'm not sure of the dynamics of building something closer to consensus as a way to move forward. Consensus is probably impossible but I'd like to see a little bipartisan buy-in. Don't know the best way to get that, I'm not much of a plotter and IMO it would take some plotting. Which would be risky in itself; the last thing Dems need is to be seen as using dirty tricks to hound Trump. On the other hand Trump's team is going to paint anything Dems do as a dirty trick. They are acting as if it's a big problem that Schiff knew the broad outlines of the whistleblower complaint before it was filed which IMO is a total non-issue.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2019, 07:51 AM   #68
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,005
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's not necessarily bad that it's a political process, but it is a problem if it is universally regarded as *partisan*. The House should go ahead with its inquiries, but in the meantime I hope someone is looking at what it would take to persuade some R's that the process should go forward.

I'm not sure of the dynamics of building something closer to consensus as a way to move forward. Consensus is probably impossible but I'd like to see a little bipartisan buy-in. Don't know the best way to get that, I'm not much of a plotter and IMO it would take some plotting. Which would be risky in itself; the last thing Dems need is to be seen as using dirty tricks to hound Trump. On the other hand Trump's team is going to paint anything Dems do as a dirty trick. They are acting as if it's a big problem that Schiff knew the broad outlines of the whistleblower complaint before it was filed which IMO is a total non-issue.
Bipartisanship is dead. McConnell killed it.
Beelzebuddy 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 03:32 PM   #69
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,010
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Bipartisanship is dead. McConnell killed it.
I think it was dying well before McConnell struck the mortal blow.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 06:24 PM   #70
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,569
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I think it was dying well before McConnell struck the mortal blow.
I think so too, though McConnell has driven in the stake. One can go back to Newt Gingrich at least, and perhaps also to Bob Dole, who when Clinton won the first time, was quick to say he intended to represent the people who voted against him, and set a tone of scorched-earth partisanship from then on.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 08:50 PM   #71
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,769
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
and perhaps also to Bob Dole, who when Clinton won the first time, was quick to say he intended to represent the people who voted against him, and set a tone of scorched-earth partisanship from then on.
Not saying that youíre wrong, but could you elaborate? Iím not sure I know what youíre talking about.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:51 PM   #72
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,569
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Not saying that youíre wrong, but could you elaborate? Iím not sure I know what youíre talking about.
Well, it was a long time ago, but I remember that one of the first things Dole said when Clinton won was something on the order of noting that he had won by a little less than 50 percent, and he intended to represent the percentage (he may have said the majority) that did not vote for him. I found that at the time a pretty graceless way of saying that he had no intention of cooperating, and that's about what happened. But I haven't gone back over the record. I'm just remembering what I heard over the radio.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 11:51 PM   #73
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,912
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The factors that go into the rankings are mentioned in the wikipedia article. And while they may not be perfect, as the wikipedia article points out they are considered reputable enough to be quoted in academic journals.

The United states currently has the following problems:
- Extremely divided electorate
Why is that a problem, and how did they determine it? Are one-party states with only token opposition somehow considered better? Right off the bat we hit on an obviously ridiculous criterion.

Quote:
- Gerrymandering and Voter suppression (which will probably expand in future elections)
In the midst of all this voter suppression, black voters turned out in record numbers in both 2008 and 2012. Gerrymandering is an issue, and it will not stop in 2020 even in the event of a landslide election for the Democrats. I think states should go to a computerized system with simple rules--make the districts as compact as possible, try to keep each small town and city in the same district, etc.

Quote:
- A rollback of certain human rights (such as LGBTQ rights) under Trump
Name a few rights the LGBTQ folks have in Uruguay that they do not in the USA.

Quote:
- Approval for Congress is currently below 20%
And approval ratings for everybody's local congressman are generally in the 70s or 80s.

Quote:
- Recent voter turnout in presidential elections is below 60%, lagging behind almost every country in North and South Americas
Let's completely ignore that voting is compulsory in most of South America and Mexico. I'm supposed to be impressed at the percentage of people they can get to turn out under threat of penalty?

Quote:
Is it any wonder that the ranking of U.S. democracy has declined under those conditions?
No, I see what a completely bogus number it is. So it is indeed no wonder.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 5th October 2019 at 12:07 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 12:26 AM   #74
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,912
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Well, it was a long time ago, but I remember that one of the first things Dole said when Clinton won was something on the order of noting that he had won by a little less than 50 percent, and he intended to represent the percentage (he may have said the majority) that did not vote for him. I found that at the time a pretty graceless way of saying that he had no intention of cooperating, and that's about what happened. But I haven't gone back over the record. I'm just remembering what I heard over the radio.
How was he going to represent them? He resigned his Senate seat in June of 1996 to concentrate on the presidential campaign. That sounds more like the old bomb-thrower, Newt Gingrich, who managed to hold onto the House, losing only two seats to the Democrats and three seats overall.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:18 AM   #75
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,005
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How was he going to represent them? He resigned his Senate seat in June of 1996 to concentrate on the presidential campaign. That sounds more like the old bomb-thrower, Newt Gingrich, who managed to hold onto the House, losing only two seats to the Democrats and three seats overall.
Yes, playing everything as a zero-sum game tends to work in the short term. Then you somehow end up with a crook in office who takes marching orders from Russia, because the first thing you had to compromise, way back when, was yourself.
Beelzebuddy 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 03:13 PM   #76
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,569
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How was he going to represent them? He resigned his Senate seat in June of 1996 to concentrate on the presidential campaign. That sounds more like the old bomb-thrower, Newt Gingrich, who managed to hold onto the House, losing only two seats to the Democrats and three seats overall.
As I say, this is from memory, not researched text, and it may be that he said he would continue to speak for, rather than represent, the slim majority that did not vote for Clinton. And of course I might have accidentally conflated Newt with Bob, but I don't think so, as I recall at the time thinking that it was said in a small and petulant way that I would not have thought worth noting from Newt!
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 05:02 PM   #77
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,834
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I agree that "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a catch-all phrase, although I would hope that we would never impeach a president for littering.

There is certainly a risk of it becoming politicized. I do note that it seems like since Clinton's impeachment, Democrats have been antsy to use it to get even.


That's fine as long as it results in Trump no getting a second term. As long as the Dems understand that the goal isn't conviction in the Senate, it's to make sure Trump is no longer president.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 11:30 AM   #78
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,912
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
That's fine as long as it results in Trump no getting a second term. As long as the Dems understand that the goal isn't conviction in the Senate, it's to make sure Trump is no longer president.
Now that is, by definition, politicizing the impeachment process.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:41 PM   #79
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,147
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
That's fine as long as it results in Trump no getting a second term. As long as the Dems understand that the goal isn't conviction in the Senate, it's to make sure Trump is no longer president.
Now that is, by definition, politicizing the impeachment process.

Getting him out of office is also the whole point of the impeachment process.

To what degree that may be political is a separate issue. It may be no more inherently political than the impeachment process itself.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:08 PM   #80
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,387
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
That's fine as long as it results in Trump no getting a second term. As long as the Dems understand that the goal isn't conviction in the Senate, it's to make sure Trump is no longer president.
And this is why I don't put any value on progressive hand wringing about Trump "intefering" in the election.

Craig has been pushing this strategy for over a year now, with zero pushback from anyone else here. So I figure everyone here is super down with election interference.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 05:09 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.