Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

[Segnosaur]

"Black people were never considered 3/5ths of a person, they were just counted by the government for official reasons as 3/5ths of a person."

*Slow clap* Stunning. Simply stunning.

Would you have preferred that they be counted fully?

How about preferring that they not actually be slaves in the first place?

Seriously, are you finished trying to bob the thread?

Such an argument about how "nobody considered slaves to be 3/5s, they were just counted that way" seems like a rather foolish point to defend.

 

[Ziggurat]

Isn't that a little contradictory?

No. If you think slaves aren't people at all, then you don't think slaves are 3/5ths of a person. 0 =/= 3/5

 

[Ziggurat]

How about preferring that they not actually be slaves in the first place?

Yes, that would have been better. What's your point? Madison wanted slavery abolished, but he also knew he wasn't in a position to actually abolish it. He wrote the Constitution in the hopes that it would one day be abolished, and it was.

Such an argument about how "nobody considered slaves to be 3/5s, they were just counted that way" seems like a rather foolish point to defend.

No. The lie about 3/5ths is part of a deliberate effort to rewrite history to delegitimize the constitution as a whole. Defending it against such lies is worthwhile.

 

[plague311]

No. If you think slaves aren't people at all, then you don't think slaves are 3/5ths of a person. 0 =/= 3/5

I apologize I should have been clearer. I was referring to you saying that it didn't reflect what people thought slaves were, then saying some people thought slaves weren't people at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay I'm convinced. Trump should be able to sell the country's Presidential election to Ukraine because of the 3/5th compromise.

 

[plague311]

To the shock of absolutely no one, it appears Trump directly ordered the hold on the Ukraine money (sorry if this has been posted, I didn't see it):

Among the documents viewed by Just Security, a website focusing on reporting and analysis of national security law and policy, was an August 30 email from Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at OMB to Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, stating the freeze on aid to Ukraine would continue at the explicit direction of the President despite growing legal concerns within the Pentagon and mounting external questions prompted by news of the hold becoming public just days prior.

It seems that it was a bit of a sore spot between the two agencies:

In a September 9 email to McCusker, Duffey suggested that the Pentagon, not OMB, would be to blame if the money was not spent.

"If you are unable to obligate the funds, it will have been DoD's decision that cause any impoundment of funds," he wrote.

McCusker responded: "You can't be serious. I am speechless."

How many times has that been said within or about the Trump administration? Multiple people have expressed complete bafflement at the way the administration has operated with regards to Ukraine.

Source

 

[Ziggurat]

I apologize I should have been clearer. I was referring to you saying that it didn't reflect what people thought slaves were, then saying some people thought slaves weren't people at all.

I don't think my position has a contradiction. I can't tell if I wasn't clear enough myself, or if I'm just missing what it is you see as a contradiction.

Different people had different opinions about slavery, often radically different. 3/5ths representation in the House was chosen as a practical compromise for the allocation of political power. It wasn't picked because anybody believed it accurately represented the personhood value of slaves. It's not even a compromise value for that, it is PURELY about how to allocate House seats and nothing more. I suspect most people either thought slaves were full people or weren't people at all, a rather bimodal distribution. But in any case, the only relationship between what people though of that personhood value of slaves and what they wanted for the allocation of political power was inverse.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ah more perfectly concrete evidence that the President is obstructing the Congressional investigate into abuse of power while he is being impeached for, let me check my notes here... ah yes obstructing of Congress and Abuse of Power.

I swear to God if Trump goes to trial for pit-pocketing he will steal the foreman of the Jury's wallet at some point during the trial.

 

[Segnosaur]

I swear to God if Trump goes to trial for pit-pocketing he will steal the foreman of the Jury's wallet at some point during the trial.

Don't be silly... he would be unable to steal anyone's wallet with those tiny little hands of his.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No it's just like I said I'm not saying Trump is trying to break the record for the most times to do the illegal thing while under investigation for the illegal thing, I'm just asking what would be functionally different if he was?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Pointed out in some TV political talk I can't recall which:

The GOP cannot impeach Trump or stop supporting him because they have no alternative candidate for 2020. Pence cannot win an election.

It's going to suck if Trump is not impeached until 2021 and we end up stuck with unelectable Pence for the remainder of the term.

Best option for the Democrats, drag the process out as long as possible so more truth about Trump comes out between now and November, like the latest email scandal. Ooo isn't that irony for you.

Best outcome, Trump takes a whole slew of GOP legislators down with him.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A large part of Trump mentality right now is a childish, trolling glee at seeing just how much he can get away with.

I hope it bites him in the ass hard.

 

[Segnosaur]

Best option for the Democrats, drag the process out as long as possible so more truth about Trump comes out between now and November, like the latest email scandal. Ooo isn't that irony for you.

I'd love to see them forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate right before (like, literally minutes/hours before) Trump's State of the Union speech, just to see how much of a melt-down there is.

Seriously though, it will all depend on what Moscow Mitch does. If he decides "Yes, we will hold an actual trial with actual witnesses" then they would need to proceed without delay (because otherwise they would be criticized for "playing politics"). But as long as the Turtle keeps bragging about coordinating with the white house, then the Democrats can delay while maintaining the high ground.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'd love to see them forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate right before (like, literally minutes/hours before) Trump's State of the Union speech, just to see how much of a melt-down there is.

Can we get Pelosi to have them delivered via singing telegram to McConnell in the background while Trump is giving the speech?

 

[plague311]

I had read an article that mentioned how this might be one of Pelosi's best strategic moves that she can make. Let Trump simmer in his own stew for awhile thinking about what's happening because it's obvious she's living rent free in Trump's head. The man is obsessed with what's happening. Then watch him fall apart when he decided to go off prompter at the SOTU speech and giggle all the way home. I seriously think that Trump will lose his marbles in front of the nation. Now with these new emails that aren't as heavily redacted it might be enough to severely chap his ass as well.

 

[bruto]

No. If you think slaves aren't people at all, then you don't think slaves are 3/5ths of a person. 0 =/= 3/5

True, if you think slaves aren't people at all, you enslave them, forbidding them any political voice, and then cynically count them in the census so you can have more power with fewer votes. Gee, I wonder who would have done that?

 

[Ziggurat]

I seriously think that Trump will lose his marbles in front of the nation.

This is a fairly testable prediction. What happens if he doesn't lose it? Will that alter your thinking about what's going on?

 

[plague311]

This is a fairly testable prediction. What happens if he doesn't lose it?

Then he doesn't.

Will that alter your thinking about what's going on?

What do you mean? About impeachment? No, I'll follow the evidence which has laid a crystal clear trail proving Trump used his power to strong arm another country in order to get an advantage in the upcoming elections.

******* with Trump's head is just a side bonus.

 

[Minoosh]

Can we get Pelosi to have them delivered via singing telegram to McConnell in the background while Trump is giving the speech?

Make it a stripper dressed as a congressional wonk and Trump would be on board..

 

[Segnosaur]

Look! There are cracks forming with the Democrats! A former Democratic gov. of Illinois has complained that the Democrats would have "Impeached Lincoln".

From: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0200102-6xsmxdh3dfhcharumgncizgpna-story.html
Disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich rang in the new year by penning an editorial for a conservative website arguing that current House Democrats who have impeached President Donald Trump also would have tried to impeach Abraham Lincoln.

And Blagojevich was impeached himself, so he should know from experience what it is like!

(Its thought that Blagojevich wrote the article in order to get on Trump's good side and get pardoned.)