Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

Also, I can't believe Tulsi is still floating at only 1%.  Not a good indicator that the voting public is paying attention if you ask me.

 

I, too, can’t believe the anti-impeachment Assad apologist cult member, whose home district approval rating looks like Trump’s, is polling at a full digit. 

[Ternaugh]

2 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

I don't know if there's enough direct evidence for impeachment, but there may be enough to investigate.

 

There is that kind of fear (of political harassment), but Trump has been skirting this for years.  I don't know if it's politically the correct choice, but I literally lost count of the amount of times Trump or his lawyer said/tweeted something that was essentially admission of guilt, establishing criminal intent, or other things that police officers try their best to establish through conversation (and the very reason lawyers say "don't speak!" - ex - him saying he fired Comey for the Russia Investigation.)

 

I'm surprised this took so long, but I don't know if Impeachment at this stage would be good (although it's not going to happen). 

 

Following an investigation into the matter, the House is likely to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate (because it requires a simple majority of those present and voting), but the Senate is not likely to convict . From Wikipedia:

 

Quote

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

• First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
• Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
• Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.

 

[ScottishFox]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

I, too, can’t believe the anti-impeachment Assad apologist cult member, whose home district approval rating looks like Trump’s, is polling at a full digit. 

 

Unnecessarily harsh, sir.

 

She is no fan of Assad and has stated she is *now* in favor of impeachment.

I'm still not convinced that after 2.5 years of impeachable offense rumblings that there is enough damning evidence to do it in a way that doesn't gift wrap the presidency for Trump in 2020.

 

I'd still take Tulsi over Biden, Warren, Harris and Hillary any day of the week.

 

 

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

Following an investigation into the matter, the House is likely to send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate (because it requires a simple majority of those present and voting), but the Senate is not likely to convict .

 

 

There is still considerable value to be had in forcing the Senate GOP to vote to defend Trump.  Or in forcing McConnell to thwart the will of the people the way he usually does.  At this point, nothing would depress Democratic voter turnout more than not impeaching.

[Ternaugh]

25 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

There is still considerable value to be had in forcing the Senate GOP to vote to defend Trump.  Or in forcing McConnell to thwart the will of the people the way he usually does.  At this point, nothing would depress Democratic voter turnout more than not impeaching.

 

Certainly. A roll-call vote would be most helpful in the matter. And since the Chief Justice presides, McConnell wouldn't have full access to his bag of tricks, either.

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I don't mean in the literal sense required for proceedings.

 

This has to work or it's just going to become the next way for the two parties to harass each other ad nauseam instead of actually governing.

 

If this flops hard it will just give him more voters and I can't see the Senate bouncing him for fear of losing power to the Democrats.

 

Put up a strong candidate and bounce this guy.

 

Also, I can't believe Tulsi is still floating at only 1%.  Not a good indicator that the voting public is paying attention if you ask me.

 

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

There is still considerable value to be had in forcing the Senate GOP to vote to defend Trump.  Or in forcing McConnell to thwart the will of the people the way he usually does.  At this point, nothing would depress Democratic voter turnout more than not impeaching.

 

IMHO at this point it's a necessary gamble. It's true that this could galvanize Trump's base, but it could also motivate Democratic voters, if they see there's no constitutional alternative to voting Trump out of office. And right now those who oppose Trump appear to significantly outnumber those who support him. But simply avoiding the impeachment procedure after all Trump has done has a high chance of turning off voters who want to believe the party they vote for stands for something.

 

But I agree, a Democratic candidate who can rally the people is crucial, or any goodwill the impeachment procedure may garner will be squandered.

[csyphrett]

Spectrum News was running a story on NC farmers mad about the trade war declaring they would vote for Trump again. I said say goodbye to your farm, idiot

CES

[Hermit]

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

 

IMHO at this point it's a necessary gamble. It's true that this could galvanize Trump's base, but it could also motivate Democratic voters, if they see there's no constitutional alternative to voting Trump out of office. And right now those who oppose Trump appear to significantly outnumber those who support him. But simply avoiding the impeachment procedure after all Trump has done has a high chance of turning off voters who want to believe the party they vote for stands for something.

 

But I agree, a Democratic candidate who can rally the people is crucial, or any goodwill the impeachment procedure may garner will be squandered.

 

I agree. I think this whole thing has forced the Democratic party's hand so to speak. If they had let this slide, congress as a whole might as well just declare that the Executive Branch rules and Congress bows... and that's now how the three branches are meant to go.

[Dr.Device]

I don't see how anyone can look at the call summary released by the White House and not see enough evidence to impeach. The president of the United States conditioned giving id to an ally, aid that had been voted for a approved, on that ally performing a political favor for the president. Not for the country, but for the president. 

 

That's a violation of campaign laws, and even if it weren't, it's a clear abuse of power that calls for impeachment and removal from office.

[ScottishFox]

I've read the "transcript" that is posted on CNN and I don't see a hard quid-pro-quo there.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

 

Sounds like he reminds the Ukrainian president of all the great things they do for the Ukraine and then asks him to resume an investigation that Biden was bragging about getting cancelled.

 

There's no way you're going to get a stack of Republicans to agree that this was explicitly criminal.

 

One mental exercise I like to do with these things is to swap in the candidate I want to win (Biden/Hillary/Tulsi for me) and then imagine if they did the exact same thing - would I perceive it in the same light.

 

So, if I swap in Hillary, and read this phone call (besides wondering about her sudden lack of eloquence) - I wouldn't see this being a big criminal act.

 

This is going to flop hard and gift wrap a 2nd term for verbal diarrhea guy.

[Ternaugh]

52 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

I've read the "transcript" that is posted on CNN and I don't see a hard quid-pro-quo there.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

 

Sounds like he reminds the Ukrainian president of all the great things they do for the Ukraine and then asks him to resume an investigation that Biden was bragging about getting cancelled.

 

There's no way you're going to get a stack of Republicans to agree that this was explicitly criminal.

 

One mental exercise I like to do with these things is to swap in the candidate I want to win (Biden/Hillary/Tulsi for me) and then imagine if they did the exact same thing - would I perceive it in the same light.

 

So, if I swap in Hillary, and read this phone call (besides wondering about her sudden lack of eloquence) - I wouldn't see this being a big criminal act.

 

This is going to flop hard and gift wrap a 2nd term for verbal diarrhea guy.

 

"High Crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't need an explicit crime to have taken place. From the quote below, it could easily be argued that the behavior displayed in the transcript touches on all three types, but especially #3.

 

Quote

Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office".^[6][1] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

(2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

(3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.^[6][1]

 

[DShomshak]

The Sep 28, 2019 issue of The Economist discusses the impeachment inquiry a bit, with a parallel discussion of the UK Supreme Court slapping down Boris Johnson (look at their cover if you can, it's a hoot.) In their leader discussing the pros and cons of impeachment, the editors offer this warning to reluctant Republicans:

 

"Declining to impeach Mr Trump would set a precedent for future presidents: anything up to and including what the 45th president has done would be fair game. Republican partisans should consider to what depth a future Democratic president, thus emboldened, could stoop.

 

"It would also signal to America's allies and foes that snooping on Americans who are influential or might become so was a fine way to curry favor with a president. There would beno need for the dirt even to be true. Russia and China, are you listening?"

 

(The disturbing rejoinder to the first point is that some Republican zealots might imagine that with eight years of Trump producing a sufficiently conservative and compliant Supreme Court, they can prune the electorate sufficiently through voter-suppression laws that there will be no future Democratic presidents.)

 

They acknowledge the electoral risks, but conclude:

 

"But Mr Trump appears to be becoming more brazen as re-election draws near. The president's behavior needs investigating, with the extra authority that the impeachment process confers. Better, therefore, to lean towards principle than pragmatism. But it is a risky and perilous path."

 

Dean Shomshak

[DShomshak]

On 10/1/2019 at 9:34 AM, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm not disagreeing with the gist of what you're saying, but that one's a pretty strict no go. I'd have to see some confirmation from an original source to accept it. Unless you're not literally talking about the military.

 

It is possible I misunderstood wat Mr Vance said, or (after several months) am conflating it with other impeachment discussions.

 

IIRC the House does nave a Sergeant-at-Arms, or something like that, who is in fact armed. But I do not know the limits of what the House can order its one troop to do, or if the House could deputize additional sergeants to assist it in its constitutional duties, so I'll withdraw the point.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

4 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

I've read the "transcript" that is posted on CNN and I don't see a hard quid-pro-quo there.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

 

Sounds like he reminds the Ukrainian president of all the great things they do for the Ukraine and then asks him to resume an investigation that Biden was bragging about getting cancelled.

 

There's no way you're going to get a stack of Republicans to agree that this was explicitly criminal.

 

 

This is the part that sticks out to me, though (and I've read others bring it up). Underline added by me.

 

 

President Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

 

President Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

 

 

With that juxtaposition, the only way the implied quid-pro-quo could be more obvious is if Trump poked Zelensky in the ribs when he said it.

[Old Man]

And the rest of the transcript consists of Zelenskyy bending over backwards to accommodate the new demand.  It's pathetic, and it's why they started calling him "Monica Zelenskyy" back home.

 

There are more recent suggestions that Trump/Pompeo/Giuliani leaned on Zelenskyy to give up the Donbass region to Russia as part of the agreement.  Because we all know who Trump really works for.

[Old Man]

7 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

There's no way you're going to get a stack of Republicans to agree that this was explicitly criminal.

 

 

Could not agree more.

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

There's no way you're going to get a stack of Republicans to agree that this was explicitly criminal.

 

5 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Could not agree more.

 

Ditto. But I believe that's no longer the point.

[megaplayboy]

Nixon resigned when public support for removal was at 57%.  Currently it's somewhere between 42 and 47%.  

[Lord Liaden]

Maybe Nixon had one thing over Trump... a sense of shame.

[CrosshairCollie]

47 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Maybe Nixon had one thing over Trump... a sense of shame.

And considering how small Nixon's sense of shame was ...

Trump's ego won't let him resign, even if the polls to impeach hit 99% ...he'll just decry them as 'fake news' as he does to anything that doesn't support him.

[megaplayboy]

What matters is the breaking point of 20 Republican senators.   I suspect that it's somewhere between 55 and 65 percent public support for removal, along with a Trump approval rating between 25 and 35 percent. 

A recent poll showed that 24 percent of the population will not abandon 45 under ANY circumstances.   So 25 percent would be a kind of absolute floor.

[CrosshairCollie]

To my reckoning, even if Trump isn't impeached, we need enough solid, foolproof evidence of Trump's ... indiscretions that even if he's not impeached or convicted, it's painfully obvious to the American voting public that the Republicans who vote against impeaching/convicting are complicit with his crimes and won't get re-elected.  That would at least be something of a victory.

 

Unfortunately, nobody ever lost money betting on the stupidity of the average American voter.

[megaplayboy]

Mostly I just want 45 to face real world consequences for his obvious corruption beyond simply losing an election and being widely unpopular.

[Pariah]

Silly man! Consequences are for poor people, not the 1%!

[ScottishFox]

6 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

Mostly I just want 45 to face real world consequences for his obvious corruption beyond simply losing an election and being widely unpopular.

 

Well, given that his approval rating has been as high as 53% in the last couple of weeks he might not have to deal with any of those things.

 

I still feel like this impeachment approach is going to galvanize his base and make moderates feel like the left has gone too far.

 

It's going to be Trump 2020 if Democrats don't put forward a winning candidate and support the sh*t out of them.