Languish.org

So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

Should he be?  Yes.  Will he be?  No.

I would vote to impeach, based on obstruction of justice, but I would not condemn out of hand someone who voted not to impeach on the basis of the president's constitutional powers to hire and fire.

I voted yes, he should be impeached.

I can also respect the views held by Pelosi of 'well impeachment might backfire, and the election isn't that far off'.

But the idea of impeaching him if he wins the next election is absolutely terrible.  Look, the Mueller report is public.  I'm sure its contents will be made subject to many a TV ad.  If the voters, despite all that, still chose to re-elect Trump you can't so baldly go against their wishes as to impeach Trump based on material from 2-4 years earlier.

Should? Should is a difficult concept.

If our system was functioning as designed then he would be. However, under the circumstances I think it would be a mistake. We have to beat him in the election. So I vote to indict him as a private citizen after he is out of office.

Yes I understand this sets up a situation similar to the Roman Republic in its decadence.

Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2019, 01:50:49 PM
So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

There's no point in impeaching without being able to count at least close to 67 votes in the Senate for conviction.  Right now the Senate is nowhere near there and not going to move based on what we've seen.

So continue investigating.

Quote from: ulmont on April 29, 2019, 02:48:57 PM

Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2019, 01:50:49 PM
So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

There's no point in impeaching without being able to count at least close to 67 votes in the Senate for conviction.  Right now the Senate is nowhere near there and not going to move based on what we've seen.

So continue investigating.

Um. An impeachment includes investigation as I understand it.... It's the Grand Jury for Presidential concerns. The Senate is the actual jury.

By impeaching, the House will have the authority to demand certain figures be interviewed, like, say, Trump.

Quote from: ulmont on April 29, 2019, 02:48:57 PM

Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2019, 01:50:49 PM
So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

There's no point in impeaching without being able to count at least close to 67 votes in the Senate for conviction.  Right now the Senate is nowhere near there and not going to move based on what we've seen.

So continue investigating.

That of course is the lesson from the Clinton impeachment.  It was a grand waste of time because Senate Democrats were never going to vote for impeachment.

But there is the counter example of Nixon.  Early 1974 Nixon still had the support of the GOP as impeachment hearings were going on.  It was only later on, with the release of the "smoking gun" recording, that Nixon lost that support and he then quickly resigned.

The question is whether or not the impeachment hearings themselves would drive public opinion on the matter or not.

Yes. Do it now, even if it fails. Even if it gets him reelected.

I just hope I live long enough to eventually find out what happened.

Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2019, 02:57:35 PM
Um. An impeachment includes investigation as I understand it.... It's the Grand Jury for Presidential concerns. The Senate is the actual jury.

By impeaching, the House will have the authority to demand certain figures be interviewed, like, say, Trump.

This sounds a lot like a fishing expedition.  Or in other words, a...witch hunt.

Beat him at the ballot box or let him finish his term of office. Even if he could be impeached the cure would be worse than the disease. Too much like late Roman republic decadence.

Of course if the Democrats in Congress actually believe their own hysterics they'd vote to impeach, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Excellent troll Legbiter.  Top notch. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2019, 02:24:15 PMYes I understand this sets up a situation similar to the Roman Republic in its decadence.

Exactly.

No. The juice is not worth the sqeeze.

I'm having trouble thinking of a Roman figure as ridiculous as Trump. Pompey had the ego, but backed up by some actual accomplishments. Crassus, the predatory financial practices, but at least he did his military service. Cicero was too smart, Cato too much strength of will.

The Economist had a good piece on this question - essentially the drafters of the American constitution did not anticipate a rigid two party system and the impeachment process does not work well in this political environment.   If the proceeding is started the House will vote to impeach and the Senate will vote to clear the President.  In the end he will be able to claim he has been exonerated and the country will been even more deeply split.

Impeachment isn't going to cure the fuckedupedness that allowed Trump be elected in the first place, or to still be supported as widely as he is while openly supporting authoritarianism.  If anything, it'll make it worse.

What exactly do you mean by impeachment?

Should the House vote today to impeach and have the senate start the trial tomorrow? No, they should not.

Should the House open a formal investigation for impeachment, and start calling witness, issuing subpoenas, etc. They should.

Uncover as much dirt as possible, while parading his wrong doing in public, bait him to publicly react and generally make it as politically damaging as possible, then after you've done all that vote to impeach.

Beat him at the ballot box and smash Trumpism with an unambiguous victory, thereby avoiding Dolchstosslegenden.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2019, 08:22:05 PM
What exactly do you mean by impeachment?

Should the House vote today to impeach and have the senate start the trial tomorrow? No, they should not.

Should the House open a formal investigation for impeachment, and start calling witness, issuing subpoenas, etc. They should.

Uncover as much dirt as possible, while parading his wrong doing in public, bait him to publicly react and generally make it as politically damaging as possible, then after you've done all that vote to impeach.

That makes it sound like they're holding impeachment hearings as a campaign tactic.  That would set a terrible precedent.

Quote from: dps on April 29, 2019, 09:16:15 PM
That makes it sound like they're holding impeachment hearings as a campaign tactic.  That would set a terrible precedent.

What terrible precedent would that be?
Is it worse than all other Trump-made precedents?

Quote from: Camerus on April 29, 2019, 08:46:57 PM
Beat him at the ballot box and smash Trumpism with an unambiguous victory, thereby avoiding Dolchstosslegenden.

If we defeated Trump in 2016 we wouldn't have avoided a Dolschstosslegend.  Trump was talking about it before the election.  Why would a defeat in 2020 be any different?

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 29, 2019, 09:17:48 PM
What terrible precedent would that be?
Is it worse than all other Trump-made precedents?

Surely we should be aiming for a slightly higher standard than "only as bad as Trump."

Quote from: dps on April 29, 2019, 09:16:15 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2019, 08:22:05 PM
What exactly do you mean by impeachment?

Should the House vote today to impeach and have the senate start the trial tomorrow? No, they should not.

Should the House open a formal investigation for impeachment, and start calling witness, issuing subpoenas, etc. They should.

Uncover as much dirt as possible, while parading his wrong doing in public, bait him to publicly react and generally make it as politically damaging as possible, then after you've done all that vote to impeach.

That makes it sound like they're holding impeachment hearings as a campaign tactic.  That would set a terrible precedent.

Why would exposing actual wrongdoing by the president and the administration be any worse than the made up crimes of Obama and Clinton we've been hearing about for the past several years?  How many Benghazi investigations were there?  As far as I'm concerned Congress has a duty to expose any such activity.  The Senate not doing anything about it doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2019, 09:19:27 PM

Quote from: Camerus on April 29, 2019, 08:46:57 PM
Beat him at the ballot box and smash Trumpism with an unambiguous victory, thereby avoiding Dolchstosslegenden.

If we defeated Trump in 2016 we wouldn't have avoided a Dolschstosslegend.  Trump was talking about it before the election.  Why would a defeat in 2020 be any different?

All but the nuttiest fringes will accept electoral defeat as legit. An impeachment after the Mueller fizzle on collusion, less so.

Quote from: frunk on April 29, 2019, 09:53:27 PM
Why would exposing actual wrongdoing by the president and the administration be any worse than the made up crimes of Obama and Clinton we've been hearing about for the past several years?  How many Benghazi investigations were there?  As far as I'm concerned Congress has a duty to expose any such activity.  The Senate not doing anything about it doesn't mean we should ignore it.

What such activity are you referring to?

Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2019, 01:50:49 PM
So much discussion on this impeachment. Personally, while I strongly believe that Pelosi is waiting until after we know if Trump wins or not, I don't believe it's in the best interest of our democracy to wait. But then, I'm an idealist.

What say you, Languish?

It is not in the best interest of your democracy to wait after the election, because it will be too late then.  If he committed impeachable offenses and he gets re-elected, it means the electorate knew of the facts and decided it was ok for him to do it.

Judging by the standards of Bill Clinton, lying to the American public is an impeachable offense...

Trump went much, much, much further than that.

However, realistically, what are your chances of getting an impeachment vote in the Senate?  About nil, I'd say, but correct me if I am wrong.

With that in mind, why would you even try it?  It might even backfire against the Democrats.

Quote from: Legbiter on April 29, 2019, 05:28:00 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 29, 2019, 02:24:15 PMYes I understand this sets up a situation similar to the Roman Republic in its decadence.

Exactly.

True. But I said it for the opposite reason, where you set up a situation where nobody is held accountable for their actions so long as they remain in office.

Quote from: viper37 on April 30, 2019, 08:23:40 AM
Judging by the standards of Bill Clinton, lying to the American public is an impeachable offense...

Under oath.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on April 30, 2019, 10:22:44 AM

Quote from: viper37 on April 30, 2019, 08:23:40 AM
Judging by the standards of Bill Clinton, lying to the American public is an impeachable offense...

Under oath.

Well it depends on how you define the word "is".

Quote from: merithyn on April 29, 2019, 02:57:35 PM
Um. An impeachment includes investigation as I understand it.... It's the Grand Jury for Presidential concerns. The Senate is the actual jury.

By impeaching, the House will have the authority to demand certain figures be interviewed, like, say, Trump.

The House doesn't need to formally vote to impeach to subpoena people to testify about whether or not they should formally vote to impeach.  And formally voting to impeach - the Grand Jury returning a true bill, to use your analogy - would be the end of the investigative process.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 29, 2019, 10:54:53 PM

Quote from: frunk on April 29, 2019, 09:53:27 PM
Why would exposing actual wrongdoing by the president and the administration be any worse than the made up crimes of Obama and Clinton we've been hearing about for the past several years?  How many Benghazi investigations were there?  As far as I'm concerned Congress has a duty to expose any such activity.  The Senate not doing anything about it doesn't mean we should ignore it.

What such activity are you referring to?

Illegal activity.

Impeachment and conviction are different things.

Recognizing that the Senate is so compromised that conviction is likely not possible should not, MUST NOT stop the House from doing its job and impeaching the President.

If they impeach him, that means something whether he is convicted or not.

Further, we keep hearing that perhaps there are some pseudo sane Republicans for whom, if public sentiment does turn enough, might stop supporting Der Leader. Well, how about we see if a successful impeachment does the trick?

Finally, if we accept that his re-election is a de facto exoneration in the eyes of the public, then surely the 2018 elections that saw that same public vote in a majority capable of exercising their Constitutional duty to impeach a grotesquely corrupt President is a de facto demand that they do just that.

Impeach the President, and see what happens. I don't believe that there is any significant number of people who are sitting on the fence about voting for Trump in 2020 who will be all "Well, I am definitely voting for him now that he has been impeached, but the Senate refused to convict!".

Impeach the Presient, and see what happens. I don't think there is a single current Trump lackey who won't vote for him no matter what the House does, so nothing lost there.

Impeach the President, because if you do not, and he IS re-elected, it will be seen as the greatest political mistake of the last century.

Quote from: frunk on April 29, 2019, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: dps on April 29, 2019, 09:16:15 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2019, 08:22:05 PM
What exactly do you mean by impeachment?

Should the House vote today to impeach and have the senate start the trial tomorrow? No, they should not.

Should the House open a formal investigation for impeachment, and start calling witness, issuing subpoenas, etc. They should.

Uncover as much dirt as possible, while parading his wrong doing in public, bait him to publicly react and generally make it as politically damaging as possible, then after you've done all that vote to impeach.

That makes it sound like they're holding impeachment hearings as a campaign tactic.  That would set a terrible precedent.

Why would exposing actual wrongdoing by the president and the administration be any worse than the made up crimes of Obama and Clinton we've been hearing about for the past several years?  How many Benghazi investigations were there?  As far as I'm concerned Congress has a duty to expose any such activity.  The Senate not doing anything about it doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Exposing actual wrongdoing I have no problem with.  But Timmay didn't say that, he was talking about digging up dirt, baiting Trump, and doing as much political damage as possible.

If they don't impeach this president they set a precedent and we can kiss the concept of impeachment goodbye.

Quote from: Camerus on April 29, 2019, 10:11:17 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 29, 2019, 09:19:27 PM

Quote from: Camerus on April 29, 2019, 08:46:57 PM
Beat him at the ballot box and smash Trumpism with an unambiguous victory, thereby avoiding Dolchstosslegenden.

If we defeated Trump in 2016 we wouldn't have avoided a Dolschstosslegend.  Trump was talking about it before the election.  Why would a defeat in 2020 be any different?

All but the nuttiest fringes will accept electoral defeat as legit.

In 2016 34% of likely voters believed the election was rigged.  Half of all Trump supporters believed that.  Bizarrely, they still believe it (I don't know how that works exactly, but I've seen plenty of conservatives claim that the election was rigged by Democrats and Trump still won).  There is no reason to believe that they would regard a Trump defeat as legitimate.

Quote from: Maximus on April 30, 2019, 03:27:34 PM
If they don't impeach this president they set a precedent and we can kiss the concept of impeachment goodbye.

I don't think impeachment has ever worked.  It's not a good system for the enforcement of laws.

Quote from: Maximus on April 30, 2019, 03:27:34 PM
If they don't impeach this president they set a precedent and we can kiss the concept of impeachment goodbye.

Why is that?

[break]

Trump has filed suit to block the House looking into his bank records.  Here we are discussing it, and it's almost like it's happening in real life!

Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2019, 01:19:34 PM
Impeachment and conviction are different things.

Recognizing that the Senate is so compromised that conviction is likely not possible should not, MUST NOT stop the House from doing its job and impeaching the President.

If they impeach him, that means something whether he is convicted or not.

This. The process of impeachment stands for something. It must continue to carry strong political symbolism.

I don't think there's a legitimate reason to impeach Trump. If the democrats do so anyway, hopefully it backfires.

Impeachment is a political process.  Whether political support exists to sustain a conviction is a relevant consideration.  Whether an impeachment from the House helps or hurts the electoral prospects of the President is a relevant consideration.  Congress does not need to impeach to hold hearings on executive conduct, to investigate suspected misconduct, and to hold the Executive accountable for its conduct.

Sensible prosecutors do not bring cases if they do not think they can secure a conviction and the House should guide itself accordingly. 

Quote from: Berkut on April 30, 2019, 01:19:34 PM
Impeachment and conviction are different things.

Recognizing that the Senate is so compromised that conviction is likely not possible should not, MUST NOT stop the House from doing its job and impeaching the President.

If they impeach him, that means something whether he is convicted or not.

Further, we keep hearing that perhaps there are some pseudo sane Republicans for whom, if public sentiment does turn enough, might stop supporting Der Leader. Well, how about we see if a successful impeachment does the trick?

Finally, if we accept that his re-election is a de facto exoneration in the eyes of the public, then surely the 2018 elections that saw that same public vote in a majority capable of exercising their Constitutional duty to impeach a grotesquely corrupt President is a de facto demand that they do just that.

Impeach the President, and see what happens. I don't believe that there is any significant number of people who are sitting on the fence about voting for Trump in 2020 who will be all "Well, I am definitely voting for him now that he has been impeached, but the Senate refused to convict!".

Impeach the Presient, and see what happens. I don't think there is a single current Trump lackey who won't vote for him no matter what the House does, so nothing lost there.

Impeach the President, because if you do not, and he IS re-elected, it will be seen as the greatest political mistake of the last century.

This. :)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2019, 08:20:15 PM
Impeachment is a political process.  Whether political support exists to sustain a conviction is a relevant consideration.  Whether an impeachment from the House helps or hurts the electoral prospects of the President is a relevant consideration.  Congress does not need to impeach to hold hearings on executive conduct, to investigate suspected misconduct, and to hold the Executive accountable for its conduct.

Sensible prosecutors do not bring cases if they do not think they can secure a conviction and the House should guide itself accordingly.

To argue for the other side, what if you're a prosecutor dealing with a lynching in Deep South during the Jim Crow era?  Obviously you're not getting a conviction, but shouldn't you at least go through the motions anyway?

Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 30, 2019, 07:55:46 PM
I don't think there's a legitimate reason to impeach Trump. If the democrats do so anyway, hopefully it backfires.

I agree, Impeachment in this is more political than anything else.

Quote from: KRonn on April 30, 2019, 08:35:39 PM

Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 30, 2019, 07:55:46 PM
I don't think there's a legitimate reason to impeach Trump. If the democrats do so anyway, hopefully it backfires.

I agree, Impeachment in this is more political than anything else.

Bullshit.

I think he should be impeached, and it has nothing to do with my politics.

As someone who also opposes his policies, you can't be certain of that.

There also seems to be an assumption that the Mueller report is the be all and end all of investigating Trump.  It was narrowly focused on Russian involvement in the election (which Trump still bizarrely denies) not on Trump's misdeeds.  Mueller did a great job of staying away from a wondering away from that, unlike certain other mid 90's ones.  There's still many other things that should be investigated.  Near the top of the list would be whatever happened with Kushner, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2019, 08:30:39 PM
To argue for the other side, what if you're a prosecutor dealing with a lynching in Deep South during the Jim Crow era?  Obviously you're not getting a conviction, but shouldn't you at least go through the motions anyway?

As bad as Trump's conduct in office has been, it's not remotely comparable to a Jim Crow era lynching.

I'm not sure. Removing thousands of children from their parents without cause and with no mechanism in place to return them seems pretty close. Not to mention keeping said children in cages for months at a time.

Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2019, 07:21:11 AM
There also seems to be an assumption that the Mueller report is the be all and end all of investigating Trump.  It was narrowly focused on Russian involvement in the election (which Trump still bizarrely denies)

You want bizarre? Check out the cited examples of "Russian interference" as revealed by some Senate committee a while back.

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/e2RGqC7uqkDSq5Br6OgQSmkWwxc=/0x0:724x448/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:724x448):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13631765/Screen_Shot_2018_12_17_at_9.50.35_AM.png)

"Let's beat it together".

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/11/02/us/politics/02dc-ads-lgbt-united/02dc-ads-lgbt-united-articleLarge.png?quality=90&auto=webp)

It's like a bunch of 12 year olds made this. Oh, and Podesta's gmail got spearfished. Thus was the Republic brought down.

Quote from: Legbiter on May 01, 2019, 08:57:10 AM

You want bizarre? Check out the cited examples of "Russian interference" as revealed by some Senate committee a while back.

And?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2019, 09:14:16 AMAnd?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

Well yeah that's about it. And then you have deranged pundits and journalists with "anonyomous sources" producing gem after gem like how the Russians hacked utilities in Vermont and my absolute personal favourite, Rachel Maddow and her Russian polar vortex.  https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1090814057089826822?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090814057089826822&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsputniknews.com%2Fsociety%2F201901311072008402-MSNBCs-Maddow-Russia-Attack-US-Polar-Vortex%2F (https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1090814057089826822?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1090814057089826822&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsputniknews.com%2Fsociety%2F201901311072008402-MSNBCs-Maddow-Russia-Attack-US-Polar-Vortex%2F)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 01, 2019, 08:24:23 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2019, 08:30:39 PM
To argue for the other side, what if you're a prosecutor dealing with a lynching in Deep South during the Jim Crow era?  Obviously you're not getting a conviction, but shouldn't you at least go through the motions anyway?

As bad as Trump's conduct in office has been, it's not remotely comparable to a Jim Crow era lynching.

The concept is the same.  Crimes are committed brazenly with the expectation of impunity, because the jury will have your back.

Quote from: Legbiter on May 01, 2019, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2019, 09:14:16 AMAnd?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

Well yeah that's about it.

The answer to a multiple choice question is yeah?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2019, 08:20:15 PM
Impeachment is a political process.  Whether political support exists to sustain a conviction is a relevant consideration.  Whether an impeachment from the House helps or hurts the electoral prospects of the President is a relevant consideration.  Congress does not need to impeach to hold hearings on executive conduct, to investigate suspected misconduct, and to hold the Executive accountable for its conduct.

Sensible prosecutors do not bring cases if they do not think they can secure a conviction and the House should guide itself accordingly. 

This.

Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2019, 10:34:25 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on May 01, 2019, 09:29:58 AM

Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2019, 09:14:16 AMAnd?  Are you claiming that that was the sum total of the interference or can I do whatever I want as long as I also produce surreal material as well?

Well yeah that's about it.

The answer to a multiple choice question is yeah?

Don't feed the troll. His fedora gets bigger each time we feed it.

Quote from: dps on April 30, 2019, 01:32:24 PM

Quote from: frunk on April 29, 2019, 09:53:27 PM

Quote from: dps on April 29, 2019, 09:16:15 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 29, 2019, 08:22:05 PM
What exactly do you mean by impeachment?

Should the House vote today to impeach and have the senate start the trial tomorrow? No, they should not.

Should the House open a formal investigation for impeachment, and start calling witness, issuing subpoenas, etc. They should.

Uncover as much dirt as possible, while parading his wrong doing in public, bait him to publicly react and generally make it as politically damaging as possible, then after you've done all that vote to impeach.

That makes it sound like they're holding impeachment hearings as a campaign tactic.  That would set a terrible precedent.

Why would exposing actual wrongdoing by the president and the administration be any worse than the made up crimes of Obama and Clinton we've been hearing about for the past several years?  How many Benghazi investigations were there?  As far as I'm concerned Congress has a duty to expose any such activity.  The Senate not doing anything about it doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Exposing actual wrongdoing I have no problem with.  But Timmay didn't say that, he was talking about digging up dirt, baiting Trump, and doing as much political damage as possible.

What do you think dirt means? It means crimes.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 01, 2019, 08:24:23 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 30, 2019, 08:30:39 PM
To argue for the other side, what if you're a prosecutor dealing with a lynching in Deep South during the Jim Crow era?  Obviously you're not getting a conviction, but shouldn't you at least go through the motions anyway?

As bad as Trump's conduct in office has been, it's not remotely comparable to a Jim Crow era lynching.

Separating many thousands of children from their parents and interning them in desert camps, many of whose parents where then deported and effectively orphaning said children. Several of said children have died under mysterious or disputed circumstances, and it is a known fact that the people staffing these camps have not been screened to prevent abuse, with over a thousand children claiming they have been sexually assault, as per the NYTimes. All in all, I would consider the results of this one policy of Trump's to vastly over shadow a singular murder.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2019, 08:11:24 PM


What do you think dirt means? It means crimes.

It can also mean stuff that is embarrassing but not criminal.  It also has some connotation of being as much about rumors an innuendo as being about facts.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2019, 08:19:48 PM
Separating many thousands of children from their parents and interning them in desert camps, many of whose parents where then deported and effectively orphaning said children. Several of said children have died under mysterious or disputed circumstances, and it is a known fact that the people staffing these camps have not been screened to prevent abuse, with over a thousand children claiming they have been sexually assault, as per the NYTimes. All in all, I would consider the results of this one policy of Trump's to vastly over shadow a singular murder.

Yes merithyn said the same thing.  And yet no one is proposing impeaching Trump for this.  The separation happened a year ago - there was no need to wait for the Mueller report which has no bearing on it. Has Congress even passed legislation to address the problem?  I don't think so.  And if Congress can't even pass simple legislation to get the executive under control, it is silly to talk about impeaching.

So is the US a presidential dictatorship now? Trump gets to do whatever he wants without any opposition (and if there is any, he calls it a coup attempt), members of his administration are free to ignore or actively oppose the legislative body, and this is all apparently fine with the majority of the electorate.

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2019, 11:48:23 AM
So is the US a presidential dictatorship now? Trump gets to do whatever he wants without any opposition (and if there is any, he calls it a coup attempt), members of his administration are free to ignore or actively oppose the legislative body, and this is all apparently fine with the majority of the electorate.

What is the evidence that the majority of the electorate is fine with it? A large minority fanatically supports him, and the President can do almost anything he wants so long as over 33% of the legislature will go along with it. This is similar to the frustrations the Republicans felt when they controlled the legislature but not sufficiently to really stop Obama. The President is super powerful just generally.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 01, 2019, 05:54:58 PM
Don't feed the troll. His fedora gets bigger each time we feed it.

What I hate is that he is so good at baiting. He will say something reasonable and then I agree and then he turns around and then turns it up to something crazy. I am never quite sure how we got from A to B there.

Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2019, 12:06:05 PM
What I hate is that he is so good at baiting. He will say something reasonable and then I agree and then he turns around and then turns it up to something crazy. I am never quite sure how we got from A to B there.

So long as you realize that he is lying about things like "Rachel Maddow and her Russian polar vortex," his baiting cannot work.  Like Trump himself, Legbiter seems to lie for the pleasure of lying - the fact that we all know he is lying just adds to his pleasure.  I am sure that there is a name for this pathology, but the effect is simply that you should assume that nothing he says is true, because anything he says that actually is true is only true by accident.

Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2019, 12:04:30 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2019, 11:48:23 AM
So is the US a presidential dictatorship now? Trump gets to do whatever he wants without any opposition (and if there is any, he calls it a coup attempt), members of his administration are free to ignore or actively oppose the legislative body, and this is all apparently fine with the majority of the electorate.

What is the evidence that the majority of the electorate is fine with it?

A quibble of sorts - It doesn't really matter what a majority of the American electorate thinks.  It only matters how their votes convert to electoral college votes.  And I am concerned that the majority of college votes will be with Trump at the next election.

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2019, 11:48:23 AM
So is Venezuela a presidential dictatorship now? Maduro gets to do whatever he wants without any opposition (and if there is any, he calls it a coup attempt), members of his administration are free to ignore or actively oppose the legislative body, and this is all apparently fine with the majority of the electorate.

With the amount of oil we have, I'm surprised we haven't invaded ourselves yet.

Quote from: grumbler on May 03, 2019, 12:28:31 PM

Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2019, 12:06:05 PM
What I hate is that he is so good at baiting. He will say something reasonable and then I agree and then he turns around and then turns it up to something crazy. I am never quite sure how we got from A to B there.

So long as you realize that he is lying about things like "Rachel Maddow and her Russian polar vortex," his baiting cannot work.  Like Trump himself, Legbiter seems to lie for the pleasure of lying - the fact that we all know he is lying just adds to his pleasure.  I am sure that there is a name for this pathology, but the effect is simply that you should assume that nothing he says is true, because anything he says that actually is true is only true by accident.

Pseudologia fantastica.

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2019, 11:48:23 AM
So is the US a presidential dictatorship now? Trump gets to do whatever he wants without any opposition (and if there is any, he calls it a coup attempt), members of his administration are free to ignore or actively oppose the legislative body, and this is all apparently fine with the majority of the electorate.

It is rather alarming, isn't it?  Trump appears to believe that he is not subject to law, and with Barr in control of the Justice Department, he's correct to believe that.  I'm fairly certain Trump will be re-elected in 2020.  Trump can and will engage in unethical or even criminal behavior in the next election  That will be enough to win him four more years.

Are you saying Trump will rig the election in his favor? Easier said than done.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 02:26:31 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on May 03, 2019, 11:48:23 AM
So is Venezuela a presidential dictatorship now? Maduro gets to do whatever he wants without any opposition (and if there is any, he calls it a coup attempt), members of his administration are free to ignore or actively oppose the legislative body, and this is all apparently fine with the majority of the electorate.

With the amount of oil we have, I'm surprised we haven't invaded ourselves yet.

I have a colleague who has his students write reports on the US using the same tone as is usually employed for describing other countries. It's always an enlightening exercise.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2019, 04:27:09 PM
Are you saying Trump will rig the election in his favor? Easier said than done.

Nothing has been done to curb Russian or Chinese interference in our elections.  After the Muller Report and the narrative being put forth by the media in general and the right in particular, Russia and Trump were "cleared".  If anything, it will be easier in 2020 than it was in 2016.  Working with foreign agents is perfectly fine amongst other developments it seems.

The Republican party is now a Putin support party, as demonstrated by the past few years. Rather than resist Russia they will gleefully spread Uncle Sam's cheeks for further ramming.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 04:49:01 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2019, 04:27:09 PM
Are you saying Trump will rig the election in his favor? Easier said than done.

Nothing has been done to curb Russian or Chinese interference in our elections.  After the Muller Report and the narrative being put forth by the media in general and the right in particular, Russia and Trump were "cleared".  If anything, it will be easier in 2020 than it was in 2016.  Working with foreign agents is perfectly fine amongst other developments it seems.

They can spread all the propaganda they want, if we fall for it, that's on us.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2019, 05:09:23 PM

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 04:49:01 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2019, 04:27:09 PM
Are you saying Trump will rig the election in his favor? Easier said than done.

Nothing has been done to curb Russian or Chinese interference in our elections.  After the Muller Report and the narrative being put forth by the media in general and the right in particular, Russia and Trump were "cleared".  If anything, it will be easier in 2020 than it was in 2016.  Working with foreign agents is perfectly fine amongst other developments it seems.

They can spread all the propaganda they want, if we fall for it, that's on us.

The consequences go a little wider in the world than just you.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 04:49:01 PM
Nothing has been done to curb Russian or Chinese interference in our elections.  After the Muller Report and the narrative being put forth by the media in general and the right in particular, Russia and Trump were "cleared".  If anything, it will be easier in 2020 than it was in 2016.  Working with foreign agents is perfectly fine amongst other developments it seems.

Nothing in the Mueller report or anywhere else cleared Russia of interfering in the election.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2019, 05:11:02 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2019, 05:09:23 PM

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 04:49:01 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2019, 04:27:09 PM
Are you saying Trump will rig the election in his favor? Easier said than done.

Nothing has been done to curb Russian or Chinese interference in our elections.  After the Muller Report and the narrative being put forth by the media in general and the right in particular, Russia and Trump were "cleared".  If anything, it will be easier in 2020 than it was in 2016.  Working with foreign agents is perfectly fine amongst other developments it seems.

They can spread all the propaganda they want, if we fall for it, that's on us.

The consequences go a little wider in the world than just you.

That's beside the point.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2019, 05:29:32 PM

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 04:49:01 PM
Nothing has been done to curb Russian or Chinese interference in our elections.  After the Muller Report and the narrative being put forth by the media in general and the right in particular, Russia and Trump were "cleared".  If anything, it will be easier in 2020 than it was in 2016.  Working with foreign agents is perfectly fine amongst other developments it seems.

Nothing in the Mueller report or anywhere else cleared Russia of interfering in the election.

Hence the usage of quotation marks around the word cleared and the usage of the word narrative to describe the outcome of the Mueller Report.  The fact that is does provide damning evidence of Russia interfering and Trump associates willingly or unwillingly aiding in those efforts is being buried beneath the "no collusion"/"vindicated" narrative.

That narrative is about Trump's involvement.

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 05:33:49 PM
Hence the usage of quotation marks around the word cleared and the usage of the word narrative to describe the outcome of the Mueller Report.  The fact that is does provide damning evidence of Russia interfering and Trump associates willingly or unwillingly aiding in those efforts is being buried beneath the "no collusion"/"vindicated" narrative.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.  Are you saying because Trump was exonerated on collusion, people have forgotten Russia interfered, or that they now think it was kind of OK for Russia to interfere?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2019, 05:40:02 PM

Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2019, 05:33:49 PM
Hence the usage of quotation marks around the word cleared and the usage of the word narrative to describe the outcome of the Mueller Report.  The fact that is does provide damning evidence of Russia interfering and Trump associates willingly or unwillingly aiding in those efforts is being buried beneath the "no collusion"/"vindicated" narrative.

I'm not sure I follow your argument.  Are you saying because Trump was exonerated on collusion, people have forgotten Russia interfered, or that they now think it was kind of OK for Russia to interfere?

From what I've seen, a bit of both.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2019, 04:27:09 PM
Are you saying Trump will rig the election in his favor? Easier said than done.

No.  I think Trump will use the government to attack Democrats.  Last week I thought that Trump would use the Department of Justice to investigate his opponents in 2020.  Apparently it's already happening.  Ukraine has just reopened an investigation that was closed two years ago that involves Joe Biden's son.  Recently Giuliani has had talks with the Ukrainians  over the issue and Trump has asked that Barr to look into it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2019, 09:15:42 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 02, 2019, 08:19:48 PM
Separating many thousands of children from their parents and interning them in desert camps, many of whose parents where then deported and effectively orphaning said children. Several of said children have died under mysterious or disputed circumstances, and it is a known fact that the people staffing these camps have not been screened to prevent abuse, with over a thousand children claiming they have been sexually assault, as per the NYTimes. All in all, I would consider the results of this one policy of Trump's to vastly over shadow a singular murder.

Yes merithyn said the same thing.  And yet no one is proposing impeaching Trump for this.  The separation happened a year ago - there was no need to wait for the Mueller report which has no bearing on it. Has Congress even passed legislation to address the problem?  I don't think so.  And if Congress can't even pass simple legislation to get the executive under control, it is silly to talk about impeaching.

I'm proposing it. He should have been impeached for fraud (Trump University) and for violations of the Emoluments Clause when the congress convened for the first time after he was sworn in. He should have been impeached for his performance at Helsinki. He should have been impeached for his border policies. I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with at least a dozen more instances for which he should have been immediately impeached.

This

:berkut:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2019, 08:14:36 AM
I'm proposing it. He should have been impeached for fraud (Trump University) and for violations of the Emoluments Clause when the congress convened for the first time after he was sworn in. He should have been impeached for his performance at Helsinki. He should have been impeached for his border policies. I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with at least a dozen more instances for which he should have been immediately impeached.

We don't live in a world where thee is the slightest chance of Trump being impeached for any of this.  If we lived in that world, Trump wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2019, 03:47:42 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2019, 08:14:36 AM
I'm proposing it. He should have been impeached for fraud (Trump University) and for violations of the Emoluments Clause when the congress convened for the first time after he was sworn in. He should have been impeached for his performance at Helsinki. He should have been impeached for his border policies. I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with at least a dozen more instances for which he should have been immediately impeached.

We don't live in a world where thee is the slightest chance of Trump being impeached for any of this.  If we lived in that world, Trump wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

Trump is a token of the spiteful forces at work in the world?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2019, 03:47:42 PM
We don't live in a world where thee is the slightest chance of Trump being impeached for any of this.  If we lived in that world, Trump wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't work toward it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2019, 03:47:42 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 04, 2019, 08:14:36 AM
I'm proposing it. He should have been impeached for fraud (Trump University) and for violations of the Emoluments Clause when the congress convened for the first time after he was sworn in. He should have been impeached for his performance at Helsinki. He should have been impeached for his border policies. I'm sure if I thought about it, I could come up with at least a dozen more instances for which he should have been immediately impeached.

We don't live in a world where thee is the slightest chance of Trump being impeached for any of this.  If we lived in that world, Trump wouldn't have been elected in the first place.

If I thought that impeachment would accomplish some kind of good, I'd be all for it.  Unfortunately, I think it will only help him.  Honestly, I have no idea what to do.  Impeachment won't remove him from office and he's already shown interest in abusing the power of the government to destroy his enemies so I don't think he can be beaten in an election.  I fear we are sliding into a "managed democracy".

Impeachment may be a political process, but it should not be about "politics". There is value in the process itself, as a ritual instantiation of the values of the Republic. It's an opportunity to tie actions and ideals together, in an explicit fashion. To presume of its conclusion, and it's outcome, is good lawyerly practice, but it's not the whole of a political process. The calculation should not be whether Trump could be impeached, but whether the process itself can produce a robust discourse of democratic norms. I think it could, and it would be salutary after so much strongman rhetoric about the Presidency, and so much undermining of democratic norms, and this is why I would support a process of impeachment.

Of course, politics will play a role in this. And I think the strategy of it ought to be about the timing, rather than the possibility of winning.

If the question is, has Trump done anything that is worthy of being impeached, then the answer is of course. 

But if the question is, should the Democrats initiate the impeachment process, I think the answer is no.  The inevitable result is that he won't be impeached.  He'll say that proved that he is guilt free. 

According to one poll, only 29% of Americans want Trump impeached. Impeachment would furthermore fail in the Senate. The reality is that impeachment appeals to a minority of Americans, but would probably be counterproductive in what should be the actual goal, namely removing Trump from office and electing a candidate with reasonably broad appeal.

Make America governable again.

29?  I'd read 47 a few weeks before Mueller Day.

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 04, 2019, 08:32:58 PM
Impeachment may be a political process, but it should not be about "politics". There is value in the process itself, as a ritual instantiation of the values of the Republic. It's an opportunity to tie actions and ideals together, in an explicit fashion. To presume of its conclusion, and it's outcome, is good lawyerly practice, but it's not the whole of a political process. The calculation should not be whether Trump could be impeached, but whether the process itself can produce a robust discourse of democratic norms. I think it could, and it would be salutary after so much strongman rhetoric about the Presidency, and so much undermining of democratic norms, and this is why I would support a process of impeachment.

Of course, politics will play a role in this. And I think the strategy of it ought to be about the timing, rather than the possibility of winning.

I disagree.  We've had a discussion on norms for the two years, if we force the issue right now we probably aren't going to like the answer we get.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2019, 12:33:07 AM
29?  I'd read 47 a few weeks before Mueller Day.

I saw that number in a May 3 WaPo article, which in turn got it from a Quinnipiac poll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/03/why-dont-americans-want-impeach-trump/?utm_term=.a4d67e9dba52 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/03/why-dont-americans-want-impeach-trump/?utm_term=.a4d67e9dba52)

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2618 (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2618)

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 04, 2019, 08:32:58 PM
Impeachment may be a political process, but it should not be about "politics". There is value in the process itself, as a ritual instantiation of the values of the Republic. It's an opportunity to tie actions and ideals together, in an explicit fashion. To presume of its conclusion, and it's outcome, is good lawyerly practice, but it's not the whole of a political process. The calculation should not be whether Trump could be impeached, but whether the process itself can produce a robust discourse of democratic norms. I think it could, and it would be salutary after so much strongman rhetoric about the Presidency, and so much undermining of democratic norms, and this is why I would support a process of impeachment.

Of course, politics will play a role in this. And I think the strategy of it ought to be about the timing, rather than the possibility of winning.

I agree with your analysis but I don't think the impeachment process would create that kind of discussion.  One need only see what is happening with Barr to see what would happen during an impeachment process.

Quote from: mongers on May 04, 2019, 04:11:01 PM

Trump is a token of the spiteful forces at work in the world?

To paraphrase Rogan, the assholes have elected their king.

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2019, 10:48:08 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 04, 2019, 08:32:58 PM
Impeachment may be a political process, but it should not be about "politics". There is value in the process itself, as a ritual instantiation of the values of the Republic. It's an opportunity to tie actions and ideals together, in an explicit fashion. To presume of its conclusion, and it's outcome, is good lawyerly practice, but it's not the whole of a political process. The calculation should not be whether Trump could be impeached, but whether the process itself can produce a robust discourse of democratic norms. I think it could, and it would be salutary after so much strongman rhetoric about the Presidency, and so much undermining of democratic norms, and this is why I would support a process of impeachment.

Of course, politics will play a role in this. And I think the strategy of it ought to be about the timing, rather than the possibility of winning.

I agree with your analysis but I don't think the impeachment process would create that kind of discussion.  One need only see what is happening with Barr to see what would happen during an impeachment process.

I think that a discussion on political norms right now would not be what we want as a significant number of people want this to be the political norm.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2019, 12:15:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2019, 10:48:08 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 04, 2019, 08:32:58 PM
Impeachment may be a political process, but it should not be about "politics". There is value in the process itself, as a ritual instantiation of the values of the Republic. It's an opportunity to tie actions and ideals together, in an explicit fashion. To presume of its conclusion, and it's outcome, is good lawyerly practice, but it's not the whole of a political process. The calculation should not be whether Trump could be impeached, but whether the process itself can produce a robust discourse of democratic norms. I think it could, and it would be salutary after so much strongman rhetoric about the Presidency, and so much undermining of democratic norms, and this is why I would support a process of impeachment.

Of course, politics will play a role in this. And I think the strategy of it ought to be about the timing, rather than the possibility of winning.

I agree with your analysis but I don't think the impeachment process would create that kind of discussion.  One need only see what is happening with Barr to see what would happen during an impeachment process.

I think that a discussion on political norms right now would not be what we want as a significant number of people want this to be the political norm.

Indeed.

Quote from: fromtia on May 05, 2019, 11:03:08 AM

Quote from: mongers on May 04, 2019, 04:11:01 PM

Trump is a token of the spiteful forces at work in the world?

To paraphrase Rogan, the assholes have elected their king.

:D

That's a good one.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2019, 12:15:01 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 05, 2019, 10:48:08 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 04, 2019, 08:32:58 PM
Impeachment may be a political process, but it should not be about "politics". There is value in the process itself, as a ritual instantiation of the values of the Republic. It's an opportunity to tie actions and ideals together, in an explicit fashion. To presume of its conclusion, and it's outcome, is good lawyerly practice, but it's not the whole of a political process. The calculation should not be whether Trump could be impeached, but whether the process itself can produce a robust discourse of democratic norms. I think it could, and it would be salutary after so much strongman rhetoric about the Presidency, and so much undermining of democratic norms, and this is why I would support a process of impeachment.

Of course, politics will play a role in this. And I think the strategy of it ought to be about the timing, rather than the possibility of winning.

I agree with your analysis but I don’t think the impeachment process would create that kind of discussion.  One need only see what is happening with Barr to see what would happen during an impeachment process.

I think that a discussion on political norms right now would not be what we want as a significant number of people want this to be the political norm.

I'm not sure pollical norms have ever been exactly what I'd want them to be.  Don't see why that should preclude discussion of the subject.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 05, 2019, 12:33:07 AM
29?  I'd read 47 a few weeks before Mueller Day.

Probably depends on the poll. Sampling and the specific question can make a big difference.

Impeach.  Yes. No. Duh.  Pro samples don't miss by 18 points.  That's not sampling error, that's a movement in public opinion.