Split Thread A second impeachment

[Darat]

It's impossible to replay time with just one variable changed, so we will never know the other "what if" scenarios. However, to say that impeaching Trump was what caused the election victory is to commit the "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" fallacy.


...snip...

You need to re-read the post you quoted, it never said what you claim it does.

 

[dejudge]

It's impossible to replay time with just one variable changed, so we will never know the other "what if" scenarios. However, to say that impeaching Trump was what caused the election victory is to commit the "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" fallacy.

In my opinion, had the pandemic not come along, Trump would have sailed to an easy win.

Your opinion about the pandemic is of no use right now.

We know that the Democrats impeached Trump in a partisan vote and still won the Presidency and control of the Senate so the claim than a second impeachment would hurt the Democrats cannot be shown to be true.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
...Impeaching Trump will do the exact opposite and harden those voters' opposition to what they perceive as a bunch of over-entitled elites.

Your claim has actually been proven to be false. Trump was already impeached by the Democrats even by partisan vote yet they have not only won the Presidency but also gained control of the Senate.

A second impeachment of Trump will completely destroy him.

It's impossible to replay time with just one variable changed, so we will never know the other "what if" scenarios. However, to say that impeaching Trump was what caused the election victory is to commit the "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" fallacy.
...

In context of the claim dejudge was replying to, I don't think he was saying that the first impeachment helped the Dems to victory in 2020 so much as that it didn't hurt them nearly as badly as people were afraid it might.

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe even consider the possbility that he or she might come from the left as well as the right.

Quite possible.

Mathematically possible? Sure. Probable? Hardly.

There is nothing happening on the Left to indicate the table is set for something like that. Democrats tend to elect decent people and hold those who prove to not be so decent accountable. Republicans, not so much.

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe even consider the possbility that he or she might come from the left as well as the right.

Quite possible.

Mathematically possible? Sure. Probable? Hardly.

There is nothing happening on the Left to indicate the table is set for something like that. Democrats tend to elect decent people and hold those who prove to not be so decent accountable. Republicans, not so much.

At the moment it doesn't look like it.

I've mentioned many times that my thesis in college was about "how it could happen here". How the US wasn't immune from slipping into authoritarianism. There are right wing dictators and left wing dictators. There is Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and others on the right, and there is Stalin, Mao, Castro etc on the left.

I see no real immediate danger on the left, but that doesn't mean we really won't see that down the road.

I see a real need for structural change. The lame duck period for example has to be changed.

 

[Meadmaker]

In context of the claim dejudge was replying to, I don't think he was saying that the first impeachment helped the Dems to victory in 2020 so much as that it didn't hurt them nearly as badly as people were afraid it might.

Agreed.

The Atheist said that impeachment would "harden voters' opposition", and dejudge said that the claim had been refuted.

I don't think the Atheist's claim that a second impeachment would harden voters' opposition was refuted by the fact that Donald Trump lost re-election after the first impeachment.

That much should be blindingly obvious to everyone. Obviously, what happened last time cannot prove anything about what would happen if we do something similar again. Furthermore, the fact that something occurred after the last impeachment can't even be tied in a causal manner to the subsequent election results. We cannot tell whether Donald Trump got more votes or fewer votes as a result of impeachment.

What can be said with certainty is that impeaching Donald Trump did not cause him to be re-elected. We know that because Donald Trump was not re-elected. The above are all things that cannot be disputed by anyone who can read.

It is my opinion, which I cannot prove, for exactly the reasons mentioned before, that the first impeachment of Donald Trump caused him to get more votes than he otherwise would have.

Did I mention that can't be proved? So, if anyone feels like posting, "You can't prove that." feel free, but know that I'm already saying that. Right? Can't prove it. Right there on the page. My opinion.

It is also my opinion that the Atheist was correct. My belief is that a second impeachment would harden opposition to the Democrats. I will amend that somewhat, though, by saying it would only do so if they failed to convict. However, as I stated earlier, I'm not sure I care. Impeachment and removal from office is the right thing to do, so right at this moment I'm leaning toward saying they should do the right thing, regardless of political calculations.

 

[johnny karate]

At the moment it doesn't look like it.

I've mentioned many times that my thesis in college was about "how it could happen here". How the US wasn't immune from slipping into authoritarianism. There are right wing dictators and left wing dictators. There is Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and others on the right, and there is Stalin, Mao, Castro etc on the left.

I see no real immediate danger on the left, but that doesn't mean we really won't see that down the road.

I see a real need for structural change. The lame duck period for example has to be changed.

Yes, there have been left wing dictators in the history of the world, but that has no bearing on the likelihood of it happening here anytime soon.

What we are seeing happening in America right now didn’t occur in a vacuum. It’s been carefully crafted and constructed by Republicans for decades. It’s been leading to this for a long time.

There are simply no warning signs at all that something like this could happen on the Left.

Shortening the lame duck period is an idea I agree with, by the way.

 

[Delvo]

I originally considered this a mildly good idea in some ways but also pointless, with the net result of not caring one way or the other, but then I heard someone pointing out that an impeachment & conviction would make Trump ineligible to run again. I don't think he's likely to anyway because by that time it's likely that either he'll be dead or his continuing nervous degeneration will be so severe as to make him look too pitiful for his own current following. But just in case that doesn't work out, given the fact that the Democrats who are currently in control of their party will only spend the next few years rolling out a red carpet for him anyway just like before, another precaution against Trump 2024 would be good.

 

[Paul2]

I originally considered this a mildly good idea in some ways but also pointless, with the net result of not caring one way or the other, but then I heard someone pointing out that an impeachment & conviction would make Trump ineligible to run again. I don't think he's likely to anyway because by that time it's likely that either he'll be dead or his continuing nervous degeneration will be so severe as to make him look too pitiful for his own current following. But just in case that doesn't work out, given the fact that the Democrats who are currently in control of their party will only spend the next few years rolling out a red carpet for him anyway just like before, another precaution against Trump 2024 would be good.

He needs to be impeached *if only* to prevent him from running again, no matter how unlikely we guess that is at this time.

 

[Thermal]

He needs to be impeached *if only* to prevent him from running again, no matter how unlikely we guess that is at this time.

He needs to be impeached because we desperately need to reset standards back to the pre-Trumpian era, where reality was real and criminality pushed by the President was not a daily news report.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, there have been left wing dictators in the history of the world, but that has no bearing on the likelihood of it happening here anytime soon.

What we are seeing happening in America right now didn’t occur in a vacuum. It’s been carefully crafted and constructed by Republicans for decades. It’s been leading to this for a long time.

There are simply no warning signs at all that something like this could happen on the Left.

Shortening the lame duck period is an idea I agree with, by the way.

Of course it does. There are people on the left right now who would do the same things as those on the far right. They just don't have much of a voice at the moment.

It just isn't a danger in the foreseeable future. When I wrote my thesis, I compared the tactics and strategies employed by left wing and right wing authoritarian governments. And the fact is they were not very different from each other.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I don't think the Atheist's claim that a second impeachment would harden voters' opposition was refuted by the fact that Donald Trump lost re-election after the first impeachment.

From my reading of dejudge's refutation, the 'hardening of resolve' was supposed to have been aimed at non-Republican Senate and House, nothing to do with Presidency at all. TheAtheist was claiming that if the Democrats caused any consequences to come to Trump in the last two weeks of his presidency for the deadly attack on the Legislative branch, voters would respond by voting for Republican Senators and Representatives. Which they didn't, after the previous impeachment. It wasn't as strong a response in Congress as it was to Presidency, but voters sure weren't hardened against Democrats for Congress for the impeachment.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Maybe even consider the possbility that he or she might come from the left as well as the right.

Quite possible.

Be Warned: Your Own Version of Trump is Coming

One day, very soon, your personal Donald Trump will come along. It'll be all of the same tricks, only perfectly tailored to your beliefs and pent-up rage. He or she will be just as dishonest and as abrasive as the proverbial cat's tongue on your genitals ... but everything they say will go down smooth as butter. You know how sometimes you drink butter? Like the little tub of it they give you at Red Lobster? Like that.

They may not even be running for office. They may only want you to buy their book, or listen to their podcast. What matters is that you spot them before it's too late.

Article: https://www.cracked.com/blog/be-warned-your-own-trump-coming/

 

[angrysoba]

Do you think the benefits of doing it are high or low?

Irrelevant, Bob. Remember, the government isn’t in the business of utilitarianism. I am shocked to see you suggest it is. It is in the business of fidelity to the constitution, though, right? Impeachment.

 

[dirtywick]

It is also my opinion that the Atheist was correct. My belief is that a second impeachment would harden opposition to the Democrats. I will amend that somewhat, though, by saying it would only do so if they failed to convict. However, as I stated earlier, I'm not sure I care. Impeachment and removal from office is the right thing to do, so right at this moment I'm leaning toward saying they should do the right thing, regardless of political calculations.

i agree to a certain extent, failing to convict would be a disaster. but not in the sense that it could be avoided, it will just reveal how far gone these people are. it will harden the opposition of a small portion of the R electorate and a good number of house reps and a handful of senators. but these people's opposition is already so hardened they thought they had a right to go and kill legislators for counting votes they didn't like. they wanted to kill the VP, and many legislatures were ok with that. the dems aren't going to make them happy.

but i think many voters realize that he's lost his mind. for some of the house as well, and much of the senate, whatever political benefits he was giving them are gone.

hopefully not everyone is afraid of trump

 

[Andy_Ross]

If you can confirm a Supreme Court Justice in 8 days, then you can impeach a President in 10.

 

[angrysoba]

i agree to a certain extent, failing to convict would be a disaster. but not in the sense that it could be avoided, it will just reveal how far gone these people are. it will harden the opposition of a small portion of the R electorate and a good number of house reps and a handful of senators. but these people's opposition is already so hardened they thought they had a right to go and kill legislators for counting votes they didn't like. they wanted to kill the VP, and many legislatures were ok with that. the dems aren't going to make them happy.

but i think many voters realize that he's lost his mind. for some of the house as well, and much of the senate, whatever political benefits he was giving them are gone.

hopefully not everyone is afraid of trump

Indeed. At the least we need to see exactly who are going to stand behind Trump. If this impeachment ends up rankling Republicans then those Republicans are defenders of an attempted coup.

On the other hand, “But what if we fail to convict?” Is a terrible non-argument.

This can be said about almost any crime. “Sorry, we can’t prosecute this guy for racially-aggravated murder because what happens if there is a racist jury? They might be sympathetic. Best let bygones be bygones. Turn the other cheek. Forgive and forget. Sing kumbaya. Take the plane from Munich with your piece of paper. Submit to the Saviours. Etc etc...”

 

[JoeMorgue]

A failed coup without consequences is just a training exercise.

 

[The Atheist]

Quite the hang-up on Pelosi ya got going there. Supposedly Trump's a billionaire, but spends more time and energy on TV, tweeting, and golf than on doing his goddamned job. Why aren't you whining about him being some rich, coastal elite who belongs back in his gold leaf-bedecked den of iniquity?

Do you not even understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats?
____________________________

Meanwhile, this:

Brendan Buck, a former adviser to former Republican House speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner who has criticised Trump before, cautioned against declaring the outgoing president politically dead.

Buck argued that any kind of punishment for Trump - be it impeachment or prosecution or merely a censure by Congress - could accrue to his political benefit, a point Miller made as well.

bolding mine

I'm going to take a wild guess their insight is a little better than some unknown people on an internet forum.

 

[Paul2]

Do you not even understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats?
____________________________

Meanwhile, this:

bolding mine

I'm going to take a wild guess their insight is a little better than some unknown people on an internet forum.

that was not so much a prediction that punishing trump would accrue to his benefit as much as merely saying you could not rule it out, which should be obvious. That does not add up to an argument for not punishing trump because some pol knows more than we do.