OT: American Politics

[leafman101]

I don't get how people could say for months that this was a mistake by the Dems. Its going to hurt them politically, and then call it partisan out of the other sides of their mouth.

It would be partisan if they didn't to it to try and put themselves in a better position for 2020. They know the odds are stacked against them and it will most likely blow up in their faces, but elected to do it anyway.

 

[Wayward DP]

habsy, let's not kid ourselves here. if Obama did what Trump did re:Ukraine, you would be the loudest voice on here screaming for his impeachment

 

[leafman101]

I may be wrong but some here appear to think that Congress is a more powerful branch than the executive branch. It isn't. This isn't a parliamentary system. While the house claims overreach, so does the whitehouse, and they're both correct on some points. That's why the third branch is there to decide. Much of this should have been settled in the Judicial branch.

Also, when the impeachment fails the Senate, the House can still go for a censure and I think they'd get bipartisan support for it. There are many people that think this is the appropriate action.

No one thinks its more powerful. There are three equally powerful branches, supposedly at least. Congress is meant to be a check and balance on the Executive and Judiciary and vise versa. This is their job. They were never meant to bend the knee to the "King."

 

[Habsy]

habsy, let's not kid ourselves here. if Obama did what Trump did re:Ukraine, you would be the loudest voice on here screaming for his impeachment

Funny you say that because Obama and Holder ignored subpoenas too and Holder was held in contempt of Congress. I never once thought Obama should be impeached man, let's be fair here. Now if it was Hillary I would admit that bias. Still two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Wayward DP]

Funny you say that because Obama and Holder ignored subpoenas too and Holder was held in contempt of Congress. I never once thought Obama should be impeached man, let's be fair here. Now if it was Hillary I would admit that bias. Still two wrongs don't make a right.

so, a couple points in response. good on you for recognizing your Hillary bias.

but this is a false equivalency. Obama as president, in my view, did a lot of good shit, and a lot of bad shit. being in contempt of Congress is bad shit. ignoring subpoenas, also bad shit. but the current impeachment proceedings are not entirely about being in contempt of Congress or not responding to subpoenas. they are about trying to leverage (illegally withhold) government aid for the President's personal political gain.

but not all bad shit is impeachable. Trump has done a LOT of really bad shit, and has been caught with varying degrees of redhandedness.

I would suggest that you never thought Obama should be impeached because his objectionable conduct never rose to the level of impeachable. I do not think that is the case with Trump. again, emoluments from day one - the dude has been personally profiting from his political victory since his inauguration. that's why reflexive bothsidesism does not really apply here.

 

[Habsy]

Here's where it gets tricky, and I am really trying to make some of you understand where my head is at so I will bullet point it:

1) Trump absolutely tried to bully Zelensky IMO. Even though most of the "evidence" is considered hearsay, it is right along Trump's historical conduct (even before being President) to do so.

2) Even considering #1, I cannot get past the future. The evidence is so thin that impeachment is just too high a crime. You simply cannot wish for it because of his other actions that they haven't proven. The fact that there is not a single crime in the articles of impeachment makes moderates think there isn't enough there. Pushing it through the way they have doesn't bode well for abuse in the future.

3) When impeachment fails, and it will, they should move to censure. If Republicans can't agree that at best his actions were unacceptable for future dealings with heads of state and censure him for it, it will look badly on the GOP instead of the Dems.

As always, we having differing views and always will. I just take impeachment very seriously and I don't think this is enough. I just don't. And that is not to say he's innocent.

 

[Habsy]

so, a couple points in response. good on you for recognizing your Hillary bias.

but this is a false equivalency. Obama as president, in my view, did a lot of good shit, and a lot of bad shit. being in contempt of Congress is bad shit. ignoring subpoenas, also bad shit. but the current impeachment proceedings are not entirely about being in contempt of Congress or not responding to subpoenas. they are about trying to leverage (illegally withhold) government aid for the President's personal political gain.

but not all bad shit is impeachable. Trump has done a LOT of really bad shit, and has been caught with varying degrees of redhandedness.

I would suggest that you never thought Obama should be impeached because his objectionable conduct never rose to the level of impeachable. I do not think that is the case with Trump. again, emoluments from day one - the dude has been personally profiting from his political victory since his inauguration. that's why reflexive bothsidesism does not really apply here.

His DACA executive order could be viewed, and is viewed by the right, as abuse of power btw.

Again though, I view impeachment very seriously and I would not support impeachment over DACA.

 

[Habsy]

so, a couple points in response. good on you for recognizing your Hillary bias.

but this is a false equivalency. Obama as president, in my view, did a lot of good shit, and a lot of bad shit. being in contempt of Congress is bad shit. ignoring subpoenas, also bad shit. but the current impeachment proceedings are not entirely about being in contempt of Congress or not responding to subpoenas. they are about trying to leverage (illegally withhold) government aid for the President's personal political gain.

but not all bad shit is impeachable. Trump has done a LOT of really bad shit, and has been caught with varying degrees of redhandedness.

I would suggest that you never thought Obama should be impeached because his objectionable conduct never rose to the level of impeachable. I do not think that is the case with Trump. again, emoluments from day one - the dude has been personally profiting from his political victory since his inauguration. that's why reflexive bothsidesism does not really apply here.

One other thing, it could be narrowly argued that those running for President on the Dem side that are trying to impeach the President are doing so for personal gain because he is a political rival. Not much different than investigating Biden. Of course that would only apply to those running for President.

 

[LeafGm]

#bothsides

 

[Habsy]

there's a convincing argument to be made that the politically expedient option for the Dems, as so many people have told us here, was to avoid impeachment.

there's also a convincing argument to be made that the moral option for the Dems, politics be damned, was to try to impeach.

you actually seem to argue in favour of the latter argument, without actually acknowledging any moral considerations anywhere whatsoever.

When it's raining outside do you have to tell others outside that it's raining? Trump is morally bankrupt. Go pack thousands of pages here and I said so before he was elected. You cannot impeach someone because you think they are morally and ethically bankrupt without concrete proof. The bar is the same as the death penalty IMO. Yes I know that no crime is needed to impeach technically but do you really think you can sell that to the non Trump hating public?

The Dems have to do what the Dems feel is necessary. I can't condemn them for that, people think different, have different beliefs etc. I just really think this is a mistake to do it with zero GOP support. Both Nixon and Clinton were bipartisan impeachments. Now some will argue that the entirety of the GOP is morally bankrupt and should be joining in but that is a fallacy. Neither party is completely chock full of hacks. If the evidence was stronger they would have a few defectors. It isn't.

Hoping, wishing, praying that they can get rid of Trump is not a strategy.

 

[Habsy]

#bothsides

This means nothing to me. Thanks.

 

[Wayward DP]

Here's where it gets tricky, and I am really trying to make some of you understand where my head is at so I will bullet point it:

1) Trump absolutely tried to bully Zelensky IMO. Even though most of the "evidence" is considered hearsay, it is right along Trump's historical conduct (even before being President) to do so.

2) Even considering #1, I cannot get past the future. The evidence is so thin that impeachment is just too high a crime. You simply cannot wish for it because of his other actions that they haven't proven. The fact that there is not a single crime in the articles of impeachment makes moderates think there isn't enough there. Pushing it through the way they have doesn't bode well for abuse in the future.

3) When impeachment fails, and it will, they should move to censure. If Republicans can't agree that at best his actions were unacceptable for future dealings with heads of state and censure him for it, it will look badly on the GOP instead of the Dems.

As always, we having differing views and always will. I just take impeachment very seriously and I don't think this is enough. I just don't. And that is not to say he's innocent.

I think the core of our disagreement is around point #2. To the extent I have seen or read things first hand, I have found the evidence pretty compelling.

And I appreciate your concern about precedent, but that cuts both ways. Trump is at least the most openly corrupt president that I have seen during my lifetime. I suspect he is one of the more corrupt presidents period. In the face of such blatant abuses of power, uncontrollable lies and mistruths, and outright theft in some cases, if you cannot impeach now, then when would it ever be successful?

and even having said all that, I'll still point to emoluments. the dude is straight up profiting off of his presidency, and has been since he was sworn in. explicitly forbidden.

actually, I also disagree about point #1. I do not think most of the evidence is hearsay. there has been specific and compelling testimony from people who were directly involved in this. and, I still think using the power of the presidential office for personal political gain, this boldly and to this extent, is pretty unheard of in your history.

 

[Wayward DP]

One other thing, it could be narrowly argued that those running for President on the Dem side that are trying to impeach the President are doing so for personal gain because he is a political rival. Not much different than investigating Biden. Of course that would only apply to those running for President.

you could argue this, but I think it's a reach

 

[Wayward DP]

When it's raining outside do you have to tell others outside that it's raining? Trump is morally bankrupt. Go pack thousands of pages here and I said so before he was elected. You cannot impeach someone because you think they are morally and ethically bankrupt without concrete proof. The bar is the same as the death penalty IMO. Yes I know that no crime is needed to impeach technically but do you really think you can sell that to the non Trump hating public?

The Dems have to do what the Dems feel is necessary. I can't condemn them for that, people think different, have different beliefs etc. I just really think this is a mistake to do it with zero GOP support. Both Nixon and Clinton were bipartisan impeachments. Now some will argue that the entirety of the GOP is morally bankrupt and should be joining in but that is a fallacy. Neither party is completely chock full of hacks. If the evidence was stronger they would have a few defectors. It isn't.

Hoping, wishing, praying that they can get rid of Trump is not a strategy.

I'm not convinced a scenario exists in which the Dems can impeach trump with any GOP support. In fact, I'm pretty convinced that scenario doesn't exist.

And I would argue that the GOP as a whole are morally bankrupt and simply cow tow to the dotard. There are certainly some exceptions of varying degrees, but the party as a whole, and its institutions, fundraising, etc. they all kiss the ring now. They have become his party, for better or for worse.

and I guess I'm not saying that impeachment should be a cut and dry moral/ethical issue. but it would be nice if the government at least considered these things when acting. morality should at least be a factor.

 

[Habsy]

I think the core of our disagreement is around point #2. To the extent I have seen or read things first hand, I have found the evidence pretty compelling.

And I appreciate your concern about precedent, but that cuts both ways. Trump is at least the most openly corrupt president that I have seen during my lifetime. I suspect he is one of the more corrupt presidents period. In the face of such blatant abuses of power, uncontrollable lies and mistruths, and outright theft in some cases, if you cannot impeach now, then when would it ever be successful?

This is what comes off as partisan. We have the numbers now, let's do it!

That is how it's portrayed to the layman (who's vote counts just as much as those in the know)

Trump also has not claimed executive privilege as much as any other president. This gives the optics of nothing to see here.

and even having said all that, I'll still point to emoluments. the dude is straight up profiting off of his presidency, and has been since he was sworn in. explicitly forbidden.

You cannot impeach someone on something you can't prove. If you don't think the Dems would have had a third article over emoluments in the impeachment had they had proof you're wrong. Just because you know and feel something in your gut doesn't mean you can act on it.

actually, I also disagree about point #1. I do not think most of the evidence is hearsay. there has been specific and compelling testimony from people who were directly involved in this. and, I still think using the power of the presidential office for personal political gain, this boldly and to this extent, is pretty unheard of in your history.

Everything aside from Sondland is hearsay. That you will find out in the senate and Judge Roberts is presiding.

 

[Wayward DP]

When it's raining outside do you have to tell others outside that it's raining? Trump is morally bankrupt. Go pack thousands of pages here and I said so before he was elected. You cannot impeach someone because you think they are morally and ethically bankrupt without concrete proof. The bar is the same as the death penalty IMO. Yes I know that no crime is needed to impeach technically but do you really think you can sell that to the non Trump hating public?

The Dems have to do what the Dems feel is necessary. I can't condemn them for that, people think different, have different beliefs etc. I just really think this is a mistake to do it with zero GOP support. Both Nixon and Clinton were bipartisan impeachments. Now some will argue that the entirety of the GOP is morally bankrupt and should be joining in but that is a fallacy. Neither party is completely chock full of hacks. If the evidence was stronger they would have a few defectors. It isn't.

Hoping, wishing, praying that they can get rid of Trump is not a strategy.

it's funny actually. for clarity, I'm of the view that the best outcome is for Trump to lose the 2020 election.

I do think he deserves to be impeached, but I'm also confident that it won't happen.

but I'm one of the people who think it's better that the Dems go through the motions and are unsuccessful than implicitly endorse Trump's never before seen levels of graft, incompetence, and buffoonery

 

[Habsy]

I'm not convinced a scenario exists in which the Dems can impeach trump with any GOP support. In fact, I'm pretty convinced that scenario doesn't exist.

And I would argue that the GOP as a whole are morally bankrupt and simply cow tow to the dotard. There are certainly some exceptions of varying degrees, but the party as a whole, and its institutions, fundraising, etc. they all kiss the ring now. They have become his party, for better or for worse.

and I guess I'm not saying that impeachment should be a cut and dry moral/ethical issue. but it would be nice if the government at least considered these things when acting. morality should at least be a factor.

Every other impeachment attempt was bipartisan. People can think what they want. I think it isn't a good look, especially if opposition is bipartisan.

 

[Wayward DP]

This is what comes off as partisan. We have the numbers now, let's do it!

That is how it's portrayed to the layman (who's vote counts just as much as those in the know)

Trump also has not claimed executive privilege as much as any other president. This gives the optics of nothing to see here.



You cannot impeach someone on something you can't prove. If you don't think the Dems would have had a third article over emoluments in the impeachment had they had proof you're wrong. Just because you know and feel something in your gut doesn't mean you can act on it.



Everything aside from Sondland is hearsay. That you will find out in the senate and Judge Roberts is presiding.

sorry, I should have phrased that more clearly.

the idea was that Trump is so uniquely and clearly unfit for office, and has been abusing his powers from day one. so in a scenario like this, i.e. unprecedented graft and incompetence etc, if you cannot impeach Trump, then when would you ever be able to impeach a sitting President?

 

[Habsy]

sorry, I should have phrased that more clearly.

the idea was that Trump is so uniquely and clearly unfit for office, and has been abusing his powers from day one. so in a scenario like this, i.e. unprecedented graft and incompetence etc, if you cannot impeach Trump, then when would you ever be able to impeach a sitting President?

Buyer's remorse is not a reason for impeachment. Even when it was your neighbor that bought the damn thing.

 

[Habsy]

I will be voting Biden if he is the candidate. Warts and all.

I'm just not so sure he'll make it to the end.