House Impeachment Inquiry

[JoeMorgue]

Call me when anyone starts trying to argue that everything Trump has done should be made null and void and "not count" and I'll listen to "Undoing the election" argument.

Nancy Pelosi is not Xerxes from 300. "There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Trump from the histories! Every one of your Tweets shall be burned. Every Fox News Anchor and every Breitbart Blogger shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Trump, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!

 

[theprestige]

I think the fact that you lump those three together tells us everything we want to know about what level you are arguing on.

I'd love to know what level of insane troll logic it takes to consider "Impeachment" in the "Coup/Assassination" side of the Venn Diagram and not the "Checks and Balances Side."

That's an easy one: "Removing an elected official from office" vs "not removing an elected official from office".

One good reason to have an impeachment process defined for your system of government is that you can do the needful without having to resort to coups, assassinations, and other unpleasant and extrajudicial options. It's a better way to get the same (sometimes necessary) result. My logic applies to the result, not the method.

Impeachment is a good method, but it's still a serious result. Because it is a serious result, it's good that the method is more likely to fail if it doesn't have broad bipartisan support. Which brings us back to my original point. I hope this is all cleared up now.

ETA: I hope you're not actually objecting to the idea that removing Trump from office would overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election. I guess you are actually objecting to that idea. Alright, then. Maybe we can at least agree that removing a president from office is a serious step, and that it's probably for the best that it is less likely to succeed without broad support in the legislature.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I hope you're not actually objecting to the idea that removing Trump from office would overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election.

I hope you're not suggesting that once someone is elected to an office they just get to stay in that office for their entire term regardless of their actions in it.

"Overturning" is semantics, a place you want to be in because it makes contrarianing away from the point easier. I will not go there.

 

[Distracted1]

Yes, I disagree. Removal from office is the government equivalent of being fired, whereas overturning an election is the government equivalent of having a job offer rescinded. Even if you disregard all other factors the timing alone would distinguish the two. Trump's 3/4ths of the way through his term.

A better analogy might be that "nullifying" the job is the same as asserting that after 3 years in someones' employ they don't fire you- instead they claim that you were never hired in the first place.

 

[theprestige]

I hope you're not suggesting that once someone is elected to an office they just get to stay in that office for their entire term regardless of their actions in it.

Of course not. Sometimes removing an elected official from office is absolutely necessary. I sincerly apologize if anything I said gave you the impression that you needed to argue this point. You don't. We already agree. We probably even agree that it's a very serious step to take.

 

[theprestige]

A better analogy might be that "nullifying" the job is the same as asserting that after 3 years in someones' employ they don't fire you- instead they claim that you were never hired in the first place.

What about asserting that the hiring manager made a mistake, overriding their decision, and firing the employee they hired?

 

[TragicMonkey]

What about asserting that the hiring manager made a mistake, overriding their decision, and firing the employee they hired?

Sounds like a firing, not a rescinding of the job offer. The employee was employed for whatever that period of time was. They'll get paid, pay taxes, and it'll figure into their SS history.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Of course not. Sometimes removing an elected official from office is absolutely necessary. I sincerly apologize if anything I said gave you the impression that you needed to argue this point. You don't. We already agree. We probably even agree that it's a very serious step to take.

Please stop treating me like I'm stupid. I'm not taking your "Now prove it's worth the serious step" bait. That wasn't your argument.

Don't start a page long argument then walk it back as if that's not what you meant to do with an "Ah shucks I guess we just didn't understand each other."

 

[Distracted1]

What about asserting that the hiring manager made a mistake, overriding their decision, and firing the employee they hired?

Totally proper. The firing does not "nullify" the hiring, the employee is still considered an employee for the time he/she was employed there. His/her actions during that time are still considered actions taken on behalf of the company, and agreed upon pay for the time of employment is still owed as per any agreement made at the hiring.

The firing does nothing to "nullify" the hiring.

 

[Belz...]

Consistent in reasoning from my axioms, you mean.

Yes, that's what he said.

Do you disagree that removing an elected official from office overturns their election?

I can't speak for TM, although I don't mind doing so, but for myself, yes, I disagree. Firing someone isn't overturning their hiring. It's terminating their employment.

ETA: Turns out TM used the exact same analogy, which must really irk you.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I guess we all is.

Averages. There are a few exceptions.

 

[TruthJonsen]

I apologize for not reading this entire thread and only being a casual observer of this mess. I have a question about the Republicans line of defense that does not make sense to me.

It would appear they had two distinct paths they could follow for defense, but they had to choose only one. It appears to me that they may have chosen the wrong one. Please correct me if they are pursuing both paths simultaneously which would be even more odd.

Defense 1: There was no Quid Pro Quo, white house visits or delivery of US military aid were not conditioned on Ukraine announcing or starting a corruption investigation.

Defense 2: There was a Quid Pro Quo but it was for legitimate purposes.

Some associated ideas:

Trump had taken a position early on that he did not want the US to be the world's policeman (this must have really ticked off John Bolton) or the world's unconditional candyman when it came to foreign aid. Using Quid Pro Quo for foreign aid is not a new idea. Several current Democratic candidates have suggested using a Quid Pro Quo: military aid for stopping settlements in the West Bank.

It seems it would have been an easier road trying to show the legitimacy of the object of the Quid Pro Quo. Russian/Ukrainian corruption has been a long time concern of the State department and previous administrations. Asking Ukraine to check out a specific situation in a known corrupt company to see if there was corruption was certainly better than asking for approval of one of his golf course resorts.

Back to the West Bank example. What if Elizabeth Warren (who could be part Palestinian, who knows) was President and wanted to implement the military aid for stopping settlements in the West Bank Quid Pro Quo. If she had family or property interests in the West Bank would she have to stop and say: I'm sorry Palestinians, you will have to wait another 4 or 8 years for this action, it would not be proper for me to do it?

I want to stress that I am not blindly supporting one side or the other. What I have stated here is from my low-information ignorance and I am trying to learn. Thanks for your help.

 

[Belz...]

Nancy Pelosi is not Xerxes from 300. "There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Trump from the histories! Every one of your Tweets shall be burned. Every Fox News Anchor and every Breitbart Blogger shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Trump, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!

 

[Dr. Keith]

I feel the job analogy is less on point than using terms like divorce and annulment. One signals the end of a marriage while the other indicates that there never was a marriage.

Overturning the election sounds more like an annulment while I think most people view impeachment as more like a divorce.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I apologize for not reading this entire thread and only being a casual observer of this mess. I have a question about the Republicans line of defense that does not make sense to me.

It would appear they had two distinct paths they could follow for defense, but they had to choose only one. It appears to me that they may have chosen the wrong one. Please correct me if they are pursuing both paths simultaneously which would be even more odd.

Defense 1: There was no Quid Pro Quo, white house visits or delivery of US military aid were not conditioned on Ukraine announcing or starting a corruption investigation.

Defense 2: There was a Quid Pro Quo but it was for legitimate purposes.

Some associated ideas:

Trump had taken a position early on that he did not want the US to be the world's policeman (this must have really ticked off John Bolton) or the world's unconditional candyman when it came to foreign aid. Using Quid Pro Quo for foreign aid is not a new idea. Several current Democratic candidates have suggested using a Quid Pro Quo: military aid for stopping settlements in the West Bank.

It seems it would have been an easier road trying to show the legitimacy of the object of the Quid Pro Quo. Russian/Ukrainian corruption has been a long time concern of the State department and previous administrations. Asking Ukraine to check out a specific situation in a known corrupt company to see if there was corruption was certainly better than asking for approval of one of his golf course resorts.

Back to the West Bank example. What if Elizabeth Warren (who could be part Palestinian, who knows) was President and wanted to implement the military aid for stopping settlements in the West Bank Quid Pro Quo. If she had family or property interests in the West Bank would she have to stop and say: I'm sorry Palestinians, you will have to wait another 4 or 8 years for this action, it would not be proper for me to do it?

I want to stress that I am not blindly supporting one side or the other. What I have stated here is from my low-information ignorance and I am trying to learn. Thanks for your help.

The fulcrum for your concerns is: what is in the best interest of the country v. what is in the best personal interest of the president.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well the problem is no analogy is going to be perfect because the Presidency/Rest Of Government / General public relationship is... pretty unique. It's sort of like a job in certain aspects, sorta like a marriage in certain aspects, sorta like a lot of stuff but totally like none of them.

This only becomes a problem when we have an agent in the discussion pretending like analogies are these terrible things that can't be understood.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think the fact that you lump those three together tells us everything we want to know about what level you are arguing on.

I'd love to know what level of insane troll logic it takes to consider "Impeachment" in the "Coup/Assassination" side of the Venn Diagram and not the "Checks and Balances Side."

It's also an extremely odd use of the English language from the other side.

You know what John Wilkes Booth was famous for? Overturning the election of Lincoln.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, that's what he said.

Consistent reasoning from axioms is not an error. The only error TM is arguing is that I've chosen the wrong axioms. This isn't actually an error.

I can't speak for TM, although I don't mind doing so, but for myself, yes, I disagree. Firing someone isn't overturning their hiring. It's terminating their employment.

ETA: Turns out TM used the exact same analogy, which must really irk you.

It doesn't irk me; it just fails. Anyway, I'm not all that concerned about the terminology. The point is that it's a serious step to take, removing an elected official from office. It's probably good that the bar for doing so is set relatively high, by requiring broad agreement from the legislature.

If the term "overturning an election" rankles, let's drop it. I don't want that to get in the way of my actual point. We can absolutely call it "firing" an elected official, if that helps move the debate along.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well the problem is no analogy is going to be perfect because the Presidency/Rest Of Government / General public relationship is... pretty unique. It's sort of like a job, sorta like a marriage, sorta like a lot of stuff but totally like none of them.

Now you are just proving theprestige right!

And I agree. Especially in one very important aspect, neither marriage nor employment typically have a preset term.

 

[theprestige]

Well the problem is no analogy is going to be perfect because the Presidency/Rest Of Government / General public relationship is... pretty unique. It's sort of like a job in certain aspects, sorta like a marriage in certain aspects, sorta like a lot of stuff but totally like none of them.

This only becomes a problem when we have an agent in the discussion pretending like analogies are these terrible things that can't be understood.

Ironically, I was doing the whole thing without appealing to analogies, and yet everyone still misunderstood.

---

ETA:

"Overturning an election is a serious matter."

"But that doesn't fit with my concept of elections-as-weddings! You're wrong!"