Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[theprestige]

There's all sorts of things wrong here.

First, there are many motivations at play. Checks and balances. Constitutional duty. Retaining seat. Partisan gain. Personal animosity. A mix of these factors. This is obvious based on human nature and the large number of people we're talking about.

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer. Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

 

[phiwum]

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer. Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

Trump is accused of putting personal interest over national interest. The evidence is pretty persuasive. Thus, he ought to be impeached. Failure to do so is an abdication of duty.

He ought to be removed too[1], but that's out of the hands of the Democrats. If the Republicans do not remove him, then they've failed to do their duty, but that's on them, not the Democrats.

As divisive as impeachment is, ignoring a serious abuse of power and treating it as business as usual, worthy of nothing more than condemnation, is a worse option.

[1] I will admit that perhaps some evidence will come forth changing my mind on this. Let's wait and see.

 

[eerok]

I didn't get beyond searching on the internet, but you weren't welcoming. They wanted people who had job skills. May have been worried about the effect us oldsters would have on the health care system.

Canada gives immigration applicants points for education, work and language skills, assets etc., and you don't get in without enough points. Each province has its own requirements. Retirees don't get a lot of points, even if you've got money in the bank. I'm sure there must be work-arounds, but I suspect they could be expensive and time-consuming. You don't just drive a Uhaul across the border and buy a house.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada.html

Thanks for the info, guys. I didn't realize we were so picky.

 

[theprestige]

Trump is accused of putting personal interest over national interest. The evidence is pretty persuasive. Thus, he ought to be impeached. Failure to do so is an abdication of duty.

He ought to be removed too[1], but that's out of the hands of the Democrats. If the Republicans do not remove him, then they've failed to do their duty, but that's on them, not the Democrats.

As divisive as impeachment is, ignoring a serious abuse of power and treating it as business as usual, worthy of nothing more than condemnation, is a worse option.

[1] I will admit that perhaps some evidence will come forth changing my mind on this. Let's wait and see.

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

As long as the goals of the Dems and the Constitution are aligned, the question is irrelevant.

 

[theprestige]

Thanks for the info, guys. I didn't realize we were so picky.

Most western countries are actually quite discriminating, about who they let in.

 

[varwoche]

... But it doesn't matter to me whether the Democrats' hearts are pure as the driven snow, selflessly pursuing justice against all self-interest or whether they are devious Machiavellans, seeking impeachment only out of selfish considerations. What matters to me is what Trump did and whether it is an abuse of his office.

Exactly. If purity of heart matters, we're in permanent trouble.

 

[theprestige]

As long as the goals of the Dems and the Constitution are aligned, the question is irrelevant.

Humor me.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Humor me.

Give me a reason to.
Give me a scenario in which the motives of the Dems are so bad that following the Constitution would be the wrong thing to do.

 

[Paul2]

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question.

1. Removal of Trump from office. [ETA: (conviction in the Senate)]

2. Defeating Trump in November.

3. Inhibiting future presidents from abusing the office.

If any or all of them are less than 50% probable (and that includes probabilities from .1% to 49%), that is not an argument for not pursuing them. Also, any assigning of probabilities has its own level of uncertainty, as the future is not written. For #2 and 3, impeachment hearing don't have to be the sole factor that achieves #2 or 3, it merely needs to contribute to the effort, so its contribution can be big or small.

 

[phiwum]

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

It is difficult to list explicitly all of the duties that the House has in considering impeachment, but these duties include the following: investigating thoroughly, considering evidence fairly, informing the public of the findings, presenting the case competently in the Senate.

This is, more or less, their part in the process. If (or when) Senate Republicans choose to ignore or downplay the evidence or seriousness of the charges, then again, that is their responsibility. Congress has its role and the Senate its.

 

[theprestige]

Give me a reason to.
Give me a scenario in which the motives of the Dems are so bad that following the Constitution would be the wrong thing to do.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't need you to humor me so much that I'm going to bother figuring it out. Instead, I'll leave you with this question: Since impeaching a president for perjury is well in line with the Constitution, does it matter what Graham's reasoning was then, or that he's a hypocrite now?

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump is accused of putting personal interest over national interest. The evidence is pretty persuasive. Thus, he ought to be impeached. Failure to do so is an abdication of duty.

He ought to be removed too[1], but that's out of the hands of the Democrats. If the Republicans do not remove him, then they've failed to do their duty, but that's on them, not the Democrats.

As divisive as impeachment is, ignoring a serious abuse of power and treating it as business as usual, worthy of nothing more than condemnation, is a worse option.

[1] I will admit that perhaps some evidence will come forth changing my mind on this. Let's wait and see.

I agree.

 

[quadraginta]

Fair enough. To be clear: You're saying that what the House Democrats are realistically trying to get out of this is simply to go through the process of impeachment, because it's the right thing to do. Would you consider them successful if they go through the process? Or is there some further outcome you would need to see, in order to consider them successful?

The House can be successful only at impeachment. It is the only part of the process they have any jurisdiction over.

A trial in the Senate is an entirely different issue.

There's no real need to conflate the two. House Democrats will have exercised their Constitutional duties as an oversight body, in spite of House Republicans' demented obfuscation.

I see that as a success.

Whether or not it was a good idea politically is a different question as well. Obviously it was one which was considered by Democrat leaders, and I tend to respect them somewhat for doing it in spite of the potential danger to their party's successes in the coming electoral cycle.

 

[Steve]

The reason I live in WA state is because I tried to move to Canada and they wouldn't let me in. Actually. (Not Canada's fault, not my fault, but the fault of the flakes who were trying to employ me.) Thus began the chapter titled Living in a Motel in White Rock, BC.

Great place to live, White Rock (although maybe not in your circumstances?). 15 minute drive south of our home. We spend a lot of time there.

 

[abaddon]

Since impeaching a president for perjury is well in line with the Constitution, does it matter what Graham's reasoning was then, or that he's a hypocrite now?

Then Graham matters not a whit, Trump should be impeached.

 

[Lurch]

It's obvious to me, anyway.

But my question wasn't so much about motivation, but about practical results. "What are the Democrats realistically trying to get out of this, and are they succeeding?" Is the question. "Look at Lindsay Graham's hypocrisy!" isn't much of an answer. Unless the idea is to consider the possibility of Democrat hypocrisy here. Graham said a lot of noble-sounding stuff thirty years ago. Who's to say, thirty years from now, when the shoe's on the other foot, some House Democrat won't be making the same face-heel turn, for the same reasons?

Just like a Rightist, to contemplate an action only if of tangible, selfish benefit.

Can't you conceive that something could be undertaken just because it's the *right* thing to do? Even if it poses a risk of backfiring in the near term?

The Dems know that there's a possibility of the impeachment process, in this highly divided political climate, could have bad consequences for them. But it's deemed of such importance for history to at least try to rein in an out-of-control Executive.

 

[smartcooky]

Can't you conceive that something could be undertaken just because it's the *right* thing to do? Even if it poses a risk of backfiring in the near term?

No, he can't, but that isn't really his fault, its the fault of his politics.

"Doing the right thing" is a concept that is entirely alien to those on the right. When you tell a conservative to do something for the benefit of others, you might as well be speaking a foreign language.

Everything in "conservative world" is done for gain; personal gain, or business gain or political gain.

The Dems know that there's a possibility of the impeachment process, in this highly divided political climate, could have bad consequences for them. But it's deemed of such importance for history to at least try to rein in an out-of-control Executive.

This! It is the Dems who are working to the benefit of the future of the US, not Trump.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't need you to humor me so much that I'm going to bother figuring it out. Instead, I'll leave you with this question: Since impeaching a president for perjury is well in line with the Constitution, does it matter what Graham's reasoning was then, or that he's a hypocrite now?

Since Graham is a kind of Juror in Impeachment Trial, it matters quite a bit whether he is going to judge the evidence to the best of his abilities, or whether he is making the choice to let Trump get away with High Crimes he would have convicted Clinton for.
In other words, Graham is Ground Zero evidence for the Senate doing its job or just playing party politics.

 

[Minoosh]

I've seen these questions - "What is the goal? What would count as success?" - used in ways that sound reasonable, but that can also be used as a kind of "gotcha." If someone asks why you're doing something, "Because it's the right thing to do" counts as a reasonable response. But that doesn't answer the question, "What is the purpose?" And I think various such devices can be used to obfuscate.

I don't make any grand claims to be an expert in critical thinking, but it seems to come pretty naturally to me. What I'm not particularly good at is responding in real time to certain devices that sound good on the surface but tend to bog down saps like me who are trying to discuss things in good faith. A former member here had a device of demanding a yes-or-no answer, with the goal (IMO) of making respondents seem evasive when they attempted a nuanced answer. (Meanwhile he just ignored any question he didn't like). This can also be framed as, "Before we go any further, let's see what we can agree on ..." followed by such a question.

And what I want to know is, how can I get good at this? Books on critical thinking earnestly spell out a number of common fallacies, but I haven't seen one on how to make specious arguments, or how to bog down a discussion with such devices.

The "why" in impeachment to me is that the process is in the Constitution for a reason, and if Trump's antics don't warrant impeachment, what exactly would? The purpose then being to draw the line for the sake of drawing the line. And while I think Bill Clinton definitely lied under oath, I also don't think his behavior seriously damaged the country. Trump has been wiley enough to avoid going under oath, so there's not such a bright line. But he's done a lot worse, IMO, by trashing the norms of the U.S. presidency, by clearly using his powers in a way that benefits him at the expense of U.S. interests.