House Impeachment Inquiry

[Brainster]

The Dems are on the majority of American's side on most things. Most Americans want abortions to be legal, most Americans want gay marriage to be legal, most Americans want paths for citizenship for immigrants, most Americans agree Trump needs to wear longer ties, etc. So you know they could just do those things but.... like with some balls instead of jumping into their unpopular pet projects.

And instead of those issues, the Democrats are running on decriminalizing the border, benefits for illegals and medicare for all with no private insurance, three things that most Americans emphatically do not want.

 

[Norman Alexander]

And instead of those issues, the Democrats are running on decriminalizing the border, benefits for illegals and medicare for all with no private insurance, three things that most Americans emphatically do not want.

1) decriminalizing the border - no, they're not. They are looking at rationalising it so that it works better, more cost-effectively. They certainly aren't going to ignore the bad guys or make it any easier for them. You might remember: Obama deported great numbers of genuine illegals back to Mexico.

2) benefits for illegals - What you are thinking of is "rights for refugees and asylum seekers". Unless you think refugees and asylum seekers should have none?

3) medicare for all with no private insurance - I haven't seen any Dem candidates suggest this at all. I've seen LOTS of variants ranging from "Obamacare Mk2" through to "proper single payer with private insurance option" (which is what is common in the rest of the developed world). There are a million-and-one ways to achieve this. Let the debate begin - hopefully something suitable for the USA will emerge. ANYTHING has got to be better than the current system.

 

[Lurch]

And instead of those issues, the Democrats are running on decriminalizing the border, benefits for illegals and medicare for all with no private insurance, three things that most Americans emphatically do not want.

Decriminalizing the border. What the heck is *that* supposed to mean? The border is criminal?

More seriously. Trump and co have effectively criminalized the *legal* act of seeking asylum. The Dems merely want to go back to treating asylum applicants as the US had done for decades prior to the white supremacist take-over of the White House.

Benefits for illegals? Not for the true illegals, who would be turned back. For those *legally* following the process, why not extend something of the human kindness already bestowed upon *all* other citizens as proposed by the Libs? The crazed rejection of this humanity by the Right seems to be predicated upon the *continuance* of the current neglect of the poorest citizens while non-citizens are handed all manner of assistance. Decent leaders see the good treatment of *all* people living in the country as a common right.

I highly doubt there's a widespread desire to do away with private insurance; a few of the more radical voices are not indicative of the mainstream policy ideas. But even if such came to pass, would that really be the end-of-civilization scenario the Right is trying to scare everyone with? What's better? Costly insurance for some and none for the rest, or coverage for *everyone*? Anyway, the system will do fine with universal coverage *and* private insurance for those who desire it.

Gawd, but the Right sure does run around with their hair on fire whenever the matter of treating people as humans comes up. Nations far less rich than the US does all this already!

The US pumps 54% of all discretionary spending into the military. That's more money than spent by the next 7 competing nations COMBINED. How about cutting this down to half? You'd still be far ahead of number two. And the freed funds would work wonders for infrastructure, health care, education, etc.

When I say that the US is in decline, this matter of obscene wastage on the military is one looming reason. It's just freaking insane. A nation obsessed with weaponry, all the way down to personal ownership of guns. One might be forgiven for being given to think that USAians collectively are either paranoid or bullies. Too worried about 'safety', and wielding their big stick, to think sanely and humanely.

 

[Baylor]

1) decriminalizing the border - no, they're not. They are looking at rationalising it so that it works better, more cost-effectively. They certainly aren't going to ignore the bad guys or make it any easier for them. You might remember: Obama deported great numbers of genuine illegals back to Mexico.

2) benefits for illegals - What you are thinking of is "rights for refugees and asylum seekers". Unless you think refugees and asylum seekers should have none?

3) medicare for all with no private insurance - I haven't seen any Dem candidates suggest this at all. I've seen LOTS of variants ranging from "Obamacare Mk2" through to "proper single payer with private insurance option" (which is what is common in the rest of the developed world). There are a million-and-one ways to achieve this. Let the debate begin - hopefully something suitable for the USA will emerge. ANYTHING has got to be better than the current system.

What are you talking about now? Why would you say this crap? This is boomer-tier cringe.

 

[Baylor]

Decriminalizing the border. What the heck is *that* supposed to mean? The border is criminal?

More seriously. Trump and co have effectively criminalized the *legal* act of seeking asylum. The Dems merely want to go back to treating asylum applicants as the US had done for decades prior to the white supremacist take-over of the White House.

Benefits for illegals? Not for the true illegals, who would be turned back. For those *legally* following the process, why not extend something of the human kindness already bestowed upon *all* other citizens as proposed by the Libs? The crazed rejection of this humanity by the Right seems to be predicated upon the *continuance* of the current neglect of the poorest citizens while non-citizens are handed all manner of assistance. Decent leaders see the good treatment of *all* people living in the country as a common right.

I highly doubt there's a widespread desire to do away with private insurance; a few of the more radical voices are not indicative of the mainstream policy ideas. But even if such came to pass, would that really be the end-of-civilization scenario the Right is trying to scare everyone with? What's better? Costly insurance for some and none for the rest, or coverage for *everyone*? Anyway, the system will do fine with universal coverage *and* private insurance for those who desire it.

Gawd, but the Right sure does run around with their hair on fire whenever the matter of treating people as humans comes up. Nations far less rich than the US does all this already!

The US pumps 54% of all discretionary spending into the military. That's more money than spent by the next 7 competing nations COMBINED. How about cutting this down to half? You'd still be far ahead of number two. And the freed funds would work wonders for infrastructure, health care, education, etc.

When I say that the US is in decline, this matter of obscene wastage on the military is one looming reason. It's just freaking insane. A nation obsessed with weaponry, all the way down to personal ownership of guns. One might be forgiven for being given to think that USAians collectively are either paranoid or bullies. Too worried about 'safety', and wielding their big stick, to think sanely and humanely.

Boring gish gallop

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not Republicans, not Democrats (especially their leadership), not the general public.

"Especially" is the wrong word, here. It only needs, IIRC, 2 more House Democrats to publicly back impeachment to make it a majority.

 

[psionl0]

Everyone keeps repeating this false equivalence.

Ken Starr hunted and hunted for something to get on Clinton and finally got an unrelated thing to what he started with.

Trump and his family are corrupt, the Russians helped him get elected, and an investigation has turned up multiple attempts at obstructing the investigation.

There is no political equivalence here except the Republicans in the Senate are protecting Trump.

1. Do you know the name of the poster I was debating with?
2. Do you know which one of us first bought up Bill Clinton
3. Other than that they are politically motivated, does it look like I agree that the Clinton impeachment is equivalent to this?

 

[psionl0]

"Especially" is the wrong word, here. It only needs, IIRC, 2 more House Democrats to publicly back impeachment to make it a majority.

Don't forget that the Senate is Republican controlled and if it gets to the Senate, it is the Republicans that will control the narrative.

 

[uke2se]

Don't forget that the Senate is Republican controlled and if it gets to the Senate, it is the Republicans that will control the narrative.

That's not necssarily true. Investigation would be in the House, and the Democrats can paint a picture of an administration so thouroughly corrupt that one need to be in complete denial not to see it - that is reality, after all. Then they pass this poisoned potato to the Goopers in the senate, and they are all forced to take a bite. It would be glorious.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Don't forget that the Senate is Republican controlled and if it gets to the Senate, it is the Republicans that will control the narrative.

I'm not forgetting that, I'm specifically arguing against the assertion that Democratic leaders are "especially" against the idea of impeachment.

 

[psionl0]

Investigation would be in the House, and the Democrats can paint a picture of an administration so thouroughly corrupt that one need to be in complete denial not to see it - that is reality, after all.

I thought that Trump was doing this already.

 

[uke2se]

I thought that Trump was doing this already.

He - through his minions at FOX - gets to frame the narrative. That's harder to do when you have open congressional hearings.

We saw an example of this with one of the hearings after the Muller report. A woman (Trump voter, because journalists love to interview the silly buggers for some reason) was interviewed about what she thought of the whole affair, and she replied she hadn't known there was anything negative about Trump in the Muller report at all, because they never said so on FOX.

Congressional hearings can have the effect of opening the eyes of people who are in a bubble, and it definitely will fire up the Democratic base, which is absolutely essential for 2020.

Not to mention, it is the morally just thing to do. Trump needs to be held accountable.

 

[psionl0]

Congressional hearings can have the effect of opening the eyes of people who are in a bubble, and it definitely will fire up the Democratic base, which is absolutely essential for 2020.

You are still ignoring the fact that although the Democrats control the narrative in the HoR, the Republicans can change it once it gets to the Senate.

Not to mention, it is the morally just thing to do. Trump needs to be held accountable.

A lot of the discussion in this thread is about timing the impeachment so that it can do the most damage to the Trump administration. That makes this a political matter and not a moral one.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think the Dems have a moral imperative to not waste time and resources on a losing battle.

So I guess we'll just strap Trump to one track and 2 hypothetical SCOTUS nominees to the other and fire up the ole' trolley and start taking turns at the track switching station.

 

[uke2se]

You are still ignoring the fact that although the Democrats control the narrative in the HoR, the Republicans can change it once it gets to the Senate.

No, they cannot, at least not easily. The word will already be out, and it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

A lot of the discussion in this thread is about timing the impeachment so that it can do the most damage to the Trump administration. That makes this a political matter and not a moral one.

I'm only discussing the first part in order to sell the necessity of the second part to doubters. The morality of the matter is a top priority for me, along side destroying Trump's legacy in order to prevent this from happening again.

 

[uke2se]

I think the Dems have a moral imperative to not waste time and resources on a losing battle.

So I guess we'll just strap Trump to one track and 2 hypothetical SCOTUS nominees to the other and fire up the ole' trolley and start taking turns at the track switching station.

Well, unless you're completely wrong, that is.

Since you're not basing your conjecture on any more facts than I am, it's just as likely that I'm right and that not impeaching Trump will lead to Democratic voters defecting at the polls because their representatives aren't taking the fight to Trump. That's what I think will happen if they do not impeach.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Since you're not basing your conjecture on any more facts than I am, it's just as likely that I'm right and that not impeaching Trump will lead to Democratic voters defecting at the polls because their representatives aren't taking the fight to Trump. That's what I think will happen if they do not impeach.

People keep saying some variation on "Oh well you're just guessing" as if

A) Support for impeachment on a party and public level is some unknown quantity. I guess if you really want to be utterly pedantic for no reason you could demand I prove that doing something the voters don't want is politically risky.

B) "Well were all just guessing so let's do it my way" makes any sense. If it's all just random conjecture I'm still going to go with the one that doesn't waste time and resources in a futile effort.

 

[uke2se]

People keep saying some variation on "Oh well you're just guessing" as if

A) Support for impeachment on a party and public level is some unknown quantity. I guess if you really want to be utterly pedantic for no reason you could demand I prove that doing something the voters don't want is politically risky.

Support for impeachment is going up all the time. A few more congresspeople and there will be a majority of Democrats in Congress that wants to impeach. Public support comes from politicians in this case. The reason that it's low is that party leadership has been telling people it's too risky. When that changes, so will opinion.

B) "Well were all just guessing so let's do it my way" makes any sense. If it's all just random conjecture I'm still going to go with the one that doesn't waste time and resources in a futile effort.

You're guessing it'll waste time and resources in a futile effort. I'm guessing it won't.

ETA: I think not impeaching Trump will be far more damaging than impeaching and failing to get a conviction. The reason, of course, is that the people who want Trump impeached now, many of whom came out for the first time in 2020, many young, many African American, will not be enthusiastic about voting for a party that had the chance to hold Donald Trump accountable but didn't have the guts to.

 

[plague311]

Boring gish gallop

You have no ******* clue what a gish gallop is as you posted this in response to a post addressing another, in which he took it item by item. If you're calling this a gish gallop, then you have to call the original post a gish gallop. Since you didn't, because it's not, I'm calling out your ********.

A lot of the discussion in this thread is about timing the impeachment so that it can do the most damage to the Trump administration. That makes this a political matter and not a moral one.

Removing Trump is a matter of both, political and moral.

People keep saying some variation on "Oh well you're just guessing" as if

A) Support for impeachment on a party and public level is some unknown quantity. I guess if you really want to be utterly pedantic for no reason you could demand I prove that doing something the voters don't want is politically risky.

B) "Well were all just guessing so let's do it my way" makes any sense. If it's all just random conjecture I'm still going to go with the one that doesn't waste time and resources in a futile effort.

What's it called when you come to a conclusion based on nothing other than your opinions, then deem it as fact, then use it to support your other opinions? Uhm, it's a...uhm. Oh yeah, confirmation bias!

As you have even pointed out, impeachment for Nixon was low as well. It generally, probably, is low to begin with. Until the curtain is pulled back, we really won't know the extent of what Trump has done. A few of these people have seen less redacted reports from Mueller. Do you think that might change an opinion or two?

 

[JoeMorgue]

As you have even pointed out, impeachment for Nixon was low as well. It generally, probably, is low to begin with. Until the curtain is pulled back, we really won't know the extent of what Trump has done. A few of these people have seen less redacted reports from Mueller. Do you think that might change an opinion or two?

Nixon isn't Trump.
The 1973 Congress isn't the 2019 Congress.
The 1973 SCOTUS isn't the 2019 SCOTUS.
And the 1973 political landscape sure as Shinola ain't the 2019 political landscape.

You're accusing me of confirmation bias but your entire plan is "Do the exact same thing in radically different, almost to the point of exact opposite, circumstances and expect the same results."

And you miss your own distinction in your post. The "Curtain" is already back on Trump. Hell it was never there.

Nixon went down because what he did made it into the public consciousness. That's what took him down. Trump's supporters know what he did, they just don't care, or worse support it. That's a completely different problem to solve.

Nixon couldn't "shoot someone in the middle of Time Square and get away with it."

That makes a difference.