Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking of witch hunts and projecting...

Republicans keep whining about how democrats are setting a dangerous precedent for impeachment of future presidents. Sorry to burst your bubble kiddies, but that ship already sailed in late 90's with your Clinton impeachment.
 
plague311 said:
The biggest thing I've learned throughout this whole thing is how ******* useless the government is when it comes to stuff like this. Every time some ****** up thing happens there's never anything anyone can do unless they're in the majority.
Click to expand...

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

- Winston Churchill

Welcome to democracy. If you can think of a better way to govern a society, besides deferring to the majority of people in that society, the world will beat a path to your door.

Fun fact: In the first half of the last century, both Communism and Fascism were seen as exactly this kind of improvement on democracy. Both were touted as the next stage in the evolution of human societies. Both of them turned out to be disastrous and murderous evolutionary dead ends.
 
theprestige said:
Welcome to democracy. If you can think of a better way to govern a society, besides deferring to the majority of people in that society, the world will beat a path to your door.
Click to expand...

You mean like creating a gerrymandered, uneven voting system where the people in power don't actually represent the actual majority of people?
 
AnonyMoose said:
Speaking of witch hunts and projecting...

Republicans keep whining about how democrats are setting a dangerous precedent for impeachment of future presidents. Sorry to burst your bubble kiddies, but that ship already sailed in late 90's with your Clinton impeachment.
Click to expand...

At last, something I can agree with without hesitation.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ok. But in this case, what would "impartial" even mean? The facts are clear and undisputed (except by a few crazy people). Does what he did warrant removal from office?

Based on a senator's answer, how would we decide if they were being partial or impartial?

All this forum talk about crimes and perjury and recusals is just internet nonsense. Sadly, though, various media outlets are encouraging such absurdity.
Click to expand...
Certainly your post is just internet nonsense. Attempting to extort the promise of announcing an investigation from a foreign leader by holding back needed money - money allocated by the US Congress for purposes having nothing to do with announcing investigations - is, on its face, more than enough reason to remove the extortionist from public office. It's only a matter of opinion to partisans who consider high crimes and misdemeanors a problem only if their opposition commits them.

Any US Senator willing to acquit this president even now (they can only be unfamiliar with the damning evidence if they've purposely ignored it) is not only abandoning impartiality but is unfit for office. If they were fit for office, they would already be condemning him daily.
 
theprestige said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

- Winston Churchill

Welcome to democracy. If you can think of a better way to govern a society, besides deferring to the majority of people in that society, the world will beat a path to your door.

Fun fact: In the first half of the last century, both Communism and Fascism were seen as exactly this kind of improvement on democracy. Both were touted as the next stage in the evolution of human societies. Both of them turned out to be disastrous and murderous evolutionary dead ends.
Click to expand...

As Joe said, Trump wasn't elected by a majority. He was elected through the EC.
 
Babbylonian said:
Certainly your post is just internet nonsense. Attempting to extort the promise of announcing an investigation from a foreign leader by holding back needed money - money allocated by the US Congress for purposes having nothing to do with announcing investigations - is, on its face, more than enough reason to remove the extortionist from public office. It's only a matter of opinion to partisans who consider high crimes and misdemeanors a problem only if their opposition commits them.

Any US Senator willing to acquit this president even now (they can only be unfamiliar with the damning evidence if they've purposely ignored it) is not only abandoning impartiality but is unfit for office. If they were fit for office, they would already be condemning him daily.
Click to expand...

They haven't ignored it; they've just fallen into line because they care more about winning their next election than the Constitution. They know that to vote guilty would be their job's death knell. Must. Support. Trump. At. All. Cost. Even the Constitution they've sworn to defend.
 
theprestige said:
Representative democracy is still democracy.

You want to try direct democracy? Good luck getting anything done if you're not in the majority.
Click to expand...
Eliminating the electoral college would not change the nature of US democracy from representative to direct.

It's almost like you were trying to twist the meaning of the post to which you were responding.
 
AnonyMoose said:
Speaking of witch hunts and projecting...

Republicans keep whining about how democrats are setting a dangerous precedent for impeachment of future presidents. Sorry to burst your bubble kiddies, but that ship already sailed in late 90's with your Clinton impeachment.
Click to expand...

They use that intimidation often when, if the Democrats don't do it (whatever it is), the GOP will do it anyway.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I’ve never identified as a Democrat, but certainly find myself rooting for them in this fight.

As such, I think they’re misplaying this very badly.

The bits I’ve heard today have the Republicans emphasizing “There’s not even an underlying crime”. That’s why I still assert that the better play would have been to include at least several of the “real” crimes where Mueller outlined all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice. And at least one or more emoluments violations. Unless the Dems have something up their sleeves, I don’t thing this minimalist tack is working for them.
Click to expand...
If they thought Mueller was a can of worms, they could have gone with witness intimidation, e.g. threats against the whistleblower.
 
theprestige said:
Welcome to democracy. If you can think of a better way to govern a society, besides deferring to the majority of people in that society, the world will beat a path to your door.
Click to expand...

Senators who will vote to acquit Trump represent between 5 and 10 million fewer voters (and even fewer residents) than those who will vote to convict him. You may well be pleased with the end result of this process, but to call it a democratic expression of the will of the people is innumerate at best.
 
Babbylonian said:
Eliminating the electoral college would not change the nature of US democracy from representative to direct.
Click to expand...

It would change the democratic election of the president to a direct election.

It also wouldn't solve the problem of not being able to get anything done in a democracy if you're not in the majority. Which was plague311's actual complaint.

In fact - and this is ironic - the 2016 presidential election is exactly a case of something getting done by people who weren't in the majority.

Maybe we should weight Senate impeachment votes slightly, according to how many constituents each Senator has? Of course, this would just bring the Senate closer to representation by majority rule than it currently is. That's kind of the opposite of what plague is complaining about.

In fact, it seems like the current arrangement of the Senate solves exactly the problem plague brings up: it's designed to give the minority a stronger voice than they'd otherwise have.

Meanwhile, the House Dems are able to press impeachment because they have the majority there. Which I guess is part of plague's problem: They had to wait until they had a majority to get this process going. But the flip side of that coin is that House Republicans can't do much to stop it, because they don't have a majority. Does plague really want us to institute a system where a minority of disgruntled GOP Representatives could cock-block impeachment by the majority, before it ever got to the Senate?

Yes, democratic rule by the majority sucks donkey balls. I'm just at a loss to come up with a better system. I think plague is, too. As far as I can tell, plague's preference is something along the lines of: A majority of the House should be able to press impeachment, and a majority of the Senate should not be able to acquit. Which doesn't sound like any kind of democracy or just form of government at all. Might as well abolish the whole thing, institute the Führerprinzip, and install plague311 as head of state, since he seems to know best when to listen to the majority and when to dismiss them.
 
Some guy named Randy Weber from Texas is calling democrats a bunch of "socialists" who don't give a damn about the life of unborn babies.

Trump is being impeached because.... zygotes.
 
Just heard on the news some nutty Republican Senator (might be the other one) is comparing the calls for impeachment by the Dem's to the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Pretty funny
 
theprestige said:
Seems like it would be the opposite of cathartic. Instead of advancing towards some kind of closure, it defers closure indefinitely.
Click to expand...
But as it stands the only possible closure is predetermined to be dishonest. I really think that McConnell's statements ought to be considered an announcement that he fully intends to mock the system and to deal dishonestly with the process. Note that I do not say this because of a predetermination that Trump is guilty or that an honest trial would result in his removal, though i suspect that is so. But for an honest trial to occur both sides must agree that they will at least listen to the evidence and judge accordingly, even if they are relatively sure of their opinions, even if they expect to side with the defense throughout, and even if, as is inevitable, their political beliefs color those opinions. To announce before the trial begins that one has reached an immovable verdict and intends to ignore any testimony is, I think, just plain, no-other-word-for-it dishonest and McConnell and his cronies should be ashamed of themselves for it.
 
theprestige said:
No.

The Chief Justice does not magically bring Supreme Court powers to Senate proceedings. He assumes the powers of the President of the Senate. He has no more authority over the way the Senate conducts the trial than the Vice President does, when he's presiding over Senate business.

He's literally just filling in for the Vice President in this role, to avoid the VP being in a position to rule on his own trial, or on the trial of the President.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Then why bother having him preside over the trial? That logic is absurd. It's clear that he is there for one reason and one reason only and that is as an unpolitical authority.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom