-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
Members of Congress swear an oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
I don't think so. I'm asking you to explain why impeachment is obligatory given that it is justifiable but doomed to be ineffectual.
I would love checks and balances. The problem is that I don't see how an ineffectual impeachment constitutes either.
The voters would be the ones with power here.
Give them all the ammo they can get.
I mean... you do realise your checks and balances are broken?
Some AGs in some states were marrying gay couples prior to that decision in bold action that helped the issue reach the courts. Not naming any names, tho...
I been knowin that. I'm a black gay male.
But now we're just saying "fuck effort" about it.
Ah, so we just throw out hands up in the air and say oh well.
Brilliant strategy.
Next time a cop shoots an unarmed black man, why even bother going through the system? We already know what the system is likely to do!
Okay, so here's the first thing that's gesturing at an actual non-political argument for an ineffectual impeachment. But can we actually try to make this argument explicit so that we can see if it holds water?
I assume the idea is something like "the Founders envisioned a process for dealing with a lawless president. First, the House impeaches them, then the Senate convicts them. It is Congress' duty to follow this process and so it is now the House's duty to impeach."
This is basically what my arsonist analogy on the last page was aimed at. Like, obviously impeachment isn't there just for the hell of it. It's there because it's part of a process for removing people from office. If the process is broken then it's not clear to me how you sustain a duty to perform the initial steps even if following the process to its end point is in general obligatory. And any Constitutional argument along these lines is basically doomed by "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" reasoning, right? Like, assume for a second that we're sure that impeachment will be a major political loser. It would be absurd to think that there's a constitutional duty to do something, which is clearly intended to help with removing a terrible president, when the effect of doing that thing will be that the terrible president is even more secure in his office.
That the Dems have already fucked the messaging up to the point people think it doesn't count.
We wouldn't be here if Pelosi and co acted like it counted. Now even fellow members of Congress don't believe it.
If you have the full knowledge that the person is going to be acquitted, and in order to file charges to even get to a trial you needed to hold a vote that you don't have the numbers to win, then yes... In this dumb analogy it is basically pointless to arrest someone.
And I'd also add that the "it's ok not to impeach" crowd seems to assume it'd be strategically advantageous not to impeach. Do we really think dems couldn't campaign on "republicans are complicit in Trump's corruption"??
Bonus content:
I know I'm late on the Selzer poll but damn Warren in 1st that's amazing, Bernie fucking collapsed with his unfavorables shot up, and Klob is dead as fuck
But this isn't true, either. We would still be here. Trump wouldn't have been removed from office if we'd impeached in April. He still would've tried to blackmail Ukraine. He'd still be doing everything he's doing right now. We'd still be right here because the only thing that actually matters is November 2020.
Democrats wonder why their turnout always lags behind Republicans when they openly portray themselves as cowards. That comment from Jared Huffman on how they know Trump keeps eating their lunch, but they'll let him do it again fits this situation perfectly.
New thread title in August-ish?
They're probably scared for all of them, but again, we don't know what crimes Putin will have his lapdog do going forward, only that they will do something, and it probably goes the same for these sad sacks as well.
Much better take than some. We're squandering the effect of a building lead here on babbling crosstalk from people who should know to at least stick to A script.
It's maddening.
if you don't have the political will to hold Trump accountable for the crimes he commits every single day while he is commuting them in broad daylight, you will never have the political will to do so. Which means that Dems (or let's not even say Dems, but people interested in reforming our society for the better) will just keep losing bc the GOP's political corruption will be even deeper entrenched in the system.
So, that's a great outcome I guess, but let's not pretend that magic fairy dust will fix America when Trump leaves office, whenever that may be. Because it will never happen.
So, that's a great outcome I guess, but let's not pretend that magic fairy dust will fix America when Trump leaves office, whenever that may be. Because it will never happen.
What does "political will" mean in this statement. How do you measure it. A for Effort. Hooray you achieved nothing.
The second tweet seems reasonable, but it's self-consciously just a political argument.
The first needs a lot more explanation. How does an impeachment of an obviously lawless president that then dies in the Senate not just as effectively render this constitutional remedy nonexistent? Is Pelosi risking oversight power? Isnt it arguably the case that she's preserving the impeachment power by not having it become obvious that you can't touch a president who can rely on the votes of 34 Senators?
"Fuck effort."
That's basically what this amounts to. But some of us actually believe in upholding this Democracy and its institutions. Some of us actually know that's it's much easier to mobilize a base when its leaders look to be fighting as hard as it expects the base to.
Besides, it's also just paying attention and simple psychology. Trump is obsessive. He can't let a thing go. And he can't balance multiple things at once. A full-blown impeachment proceeding, backed by the power of the full D-House, would completely dominate his brainspace.
Not to mention the fact that it is undeniable, undeniable, that part of Trump's emboldened recklessness is due in part to Pelosi's signaling that she has no intention of holding him accountable for anything.
As an aside, I think an eventual house vote on impeachment is more likely inevitable at this point now that we're in a pseudo impeachment investigation. At least, I'd hope dems are smart enough not to set themselves up for such an utter blunder. Because if Trump ends up being able to campaign on the dems effectively clearing him, then lol.
And with that in mind, it's important for dems now, especially in leadership, to not weaken that eventual inevitability.
And with that in mind, it's important for dems now, especially in leadership, to not weaken that eventual inevitability.
If we impeach and republicans don't convict, we can point to republicans as the broken part of the government. If we don't impeach someone that should be impeached, we're the broken part of the government.
I don't believe that for a second. Current dem leadership are shitty messagers, but they aren't shitty to the point where they can't alter behavior of a narcissist by being more clear about their intent regarding impeachment.
Why should you hold a door open for someone you know will never acknowledge it?
Because it's the right thing to do.
Sure, that might be good politics. I was hoping for an argument that there's a reason to do this beyond how you could message about it for 2020.
What power is available for what action?
People talk about the House "doing impeachment," what part of this do they want is always very confusing to me.
There is an investigation in the Judiciary.
They already have the power to subpoena and depose.
Some people seem to want a vote... To give them subpoena power specifically for investigating impeachment?
Some people seem to want an actual vote on articles of impeachment?
People want Trump gone, they want the election to be here, and a lot of this is the manifestation of anxiety and impatience more than any fully formed plan.
Trump will never be prosecuted for his crimes post-office. Should have been more explicit about that, on my phone. That's what I'm getting at.
Nadler is doing a good (not great) job, despite Pelosi's best efforts. Again, I direct you to Richie Neal, who is by all accounts a fucking moron and would rather giveaway giant loopholes to tax prep companies and Republicans than get Trumps taxes.
Nadler is doing a good (not great) job, despite Pelosi's best efforts. Again, I direct you to Richie Neal, who is by all accounts a fucking moron and would rather giveaway giant loopholes to tax prep companies and Republicans than get Trumps taxes.
Lol, these analogies are getting more and more detached. Setting aside I'm not holding the door for that asshole, the rationale is for all intents and purposes ineffectual feel good virtue signalling then?
Part of it is that, part of it is this idea that we believe in being better and yet, won't actually do better.
This is akin to asking BLM to just accept the fact the justice system is broke and deal with it. That's not acceptable to me.
But for pro-impeachment voters, it's about more than Trump. It's about a desire for someone to stand in defense of the rule of law... I actually think these are two distinct, though somewhat overlapping, impulses and it's a mistake, politically, to conflate the two because the 2020 election will not automatically restore faith in the rule of law, regardless of outcome.
Before we start talking about what some of us "want," a quick reminder of what we all should expect from these adults who lead our party.
A party leadership with the clarity, courage, and message discipline to communicate to its base whether or not we are even currently in an impeachment proceeding. Regardless of what side of the argument you sit on. And right now, because leadership has been so divided at best and absent at worst, we don't even have that. That is where we are right now. Our party is being led by a handful of people who couldn't even make a public show of being on the same page about whether or not actions they were already taking amounted to an impeachment proceeding.
Do I want an impeachment vote? Yes.
But before that? I want party leadership to get their collective heads out of their asses.
A party leadership with the clarity, courage, and message discipline to communicate to its base whether or not we are even currently in an impeachment proceeding. Regardless of what side of the argument you sit on. And right now, because leadership has been so divided at best and absent at worst, we don't even have that. That is where we are right now. Our party is being led by a handful of people who couldn't even make a public show of being on the same page about whether or not actions they were already taking amounted to an impeachment proceeding.
Do I want an impeachment vote? Yes.
But before that? I want party leadership to get their collective heads out of their asses.
Which is one of the additional reasons I want him impeached because at least he'll have some kind of stain on him. The people, I'm not speaking of anyone here - I just see it a lot when perusing Twitter, who say to not worry about impeachment because he'll be prosecuted after his term are the most maddening of all.
What is inherently "better" about taking a pointless action that doesn't really achieve anything?
The moral thing is making sure Trump isn't in office on January 21, 2021. The only way he will leave is through an election. Ergo, everything must be done through the political calculus of the election. In this case, taking whatever route that maximizes our polling numbers - that gives us the highest chance of winning - is the moral thing to do. I've said since day one that impeachment is a political tool, not some moral outcome, and should be done only if it increases our chance of victory.
I can't sign off on this thinking for this, I'm sorry auto.
I agree the only way he leaves is on election day(or the GOP finding their souls...which is never) but sometimes you gotta do what's right.
I mean, if the GOP had actually done political calculus in '98, they wouldn't have beaten the impeachment drum that year. They lost seats because of it and only won the next presidential election because of a 5-4 bullshit SCOTUS decision. So perhaps not the ideal example.
This is exactly what that Republican dude told Greta Thunberg the other day and it didn't sound good then either.
Well I wasn't talking merely messaging. The messaging happens to line up with how this logically functions in the way our government is set up.
I don't see how this argument works at all. It seems backwards, in fact. Nothing is being preserved. We cannot preserve the responsibility/power of the senate we do not hold. We can only preserve the responsibility/power of the house. By not forcing republicans to follow through and actually do what they're threatening to do, we're just giving them a free pass -- if anything, not impeaching is just helping them remove impeachment as a remedy and further erode our norms and the integrity of the government.
And unfortunately, it's a pattern -- where republicans unabashedly break norms and wreck the integrity of our democracy and democrats respond by trying not to rock the boat.
What "justice" do you achieve with a floor vote either on authorising an investigation specifically (ignoring that one is happening) or on actual articles of impeachment?
Like, as far as I can tell no one is even making the only tangible argument I currently see for a floor vote authorising impeachment inquiries, in that it may strengthen the legal case to gain access to redacted Grand Jury material. But arguments are already being heard on this so it may be redundant.
If the case is lost, I think a floor vote may be more warranted, although I still think it would lose.
Like, as far as I can tell no one is even making the only tangible argument I currently see for a floor vote authorising impeachment inquiries, in that it may strengthen the legal case to gain access to redacted Grand Jury material. But arguments are already being heard on this so it may be redundant.
If the case is lost, I think a floor vote may be more warranted, although I still think it would lose.
- Status