Impeachment II thread

[TomC]

I'm getting the feeling that this impeachment trial is a media circus, rather than a legal case. There's lots of arguments from emotion which has no place in a court of law. I get the impression it's all about besmirching Trump as much as possible rather than to win anything.

Trump needs no help in being besmirched. He is a horrible person. He has done it to himself.

There's nothing to win. He's not the president anymore, and do people seriously think that he'll ever be elected again, even if he was eligible. His term was a complete disaster. That's what people will remember.

The impeachment trial from yesterday has made me like the Democrats less and less. Trump is unpresidential. But so is this impeachment IMHO.

Wow. I do NOT understand your point of view. First, the "trial" is not a "legal trial" as we understand the term. (If it were, the Judge might direct the jury to return a guilty verdict.) And of course the result of the "trial" is foregone: the Republicans will insist on acquittal. With more than 33 Senators uninterested in justice, ONLY media coverage matters. Whose fault is the "circus," if any?

As for "besmirching" this heinous sociopathic traitor and criminal, that is the prosecutor's job. (Just ask Marcia Clark, whose coddling of the celebrity O.J. Simpson she prosecuted made it easier for jury to acquit.)

As for the claim that "people will remember his term was complete disaster": You might want to work on your Googling skills there, Dr. Zoidberg. Trump received 18% MORE votes in the 2020 election than he received in the 2016 election! 18% MORE votes!! That's "More votes" with an "M."

Trumpism is still alive — the very trial you are besmirching tells us that, with GOP Congresscritters who condemn Trump getting death threats. Can U.S. democracy recover from this? I don't know, but making Trump's crimes as visible and well-known as possible seems like a very good first step. You think we should forget about it all?

Maybe I'm wrong, and your point is valid. Can you point to a specific instance of the Dems going too far in this "trial"?

If the American voters approve of Trump then isn't he doing a good job? Political office is a popularity contest. The democrats pissing on the memory of a fallen president, is not a good look for the democrats.

Why not let the American voters decide if they want Trump back, rather than this legalistic finagling? If I was a Trump supporter and I saw the impeachment happening, I might think it looks like the Democrats not trusting democracy and is trying to derail the democratic process of electing presidents. Right now it'd be an easy story to sell the MAGA hats.

It looks to me like the Democrats are too vicious over the smell of Trump's blood that they forget the tactics of the democratic game.

I fail to see how impeaching Trump will persuade any current Trump supporters to come over to the Democrat side. If anything it'll just piss them off more and want to vote Republican again.

I think your lack of understanding of USA culture is showing again.

I posted this in another thread, but I encourage you to take a look.

I know the guy who wrote this. I've known Barney Quick since the first Reagan administration.

He's the kind of principled conservative I used to associate with the GOP. He's the kind of conservative that the TeaParty Republicans are driving out of the party. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.

This is the title of his blog post:

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2021
The depth of the damage Trump has done to the Republican Party, conservatism and America continues to become more clear by the day

Here's a quote:

A Republican Party whose Senators cannot uniformly vote to convict the most unquestionably unfit president in history is too rotted by cowardice and sycophancy to be rescued from its flatlined state.

http://barney-quick.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-depth-of-damage-trump-has-done-to.html?m=1

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the American voters approve of Trump then isn't he doing a good job? Political office is a popularity contest. The democrats pissing on the memory of a fallen president, is not a good look for the democrats.

Why not let the American voters decide if they want Trump back, rather than this legalistic finagling?

Because Congress is supposed to hold the Executive Branch responsible for high crimes. That is their job, it is enshrined in the Consitution.

If I was a Trump supporter and I saw the impeachment happening, I might think it looks like the Democrats not trusting democracy and is trying to derail the democratic process of electing presidents. Right now it'd be an easy story to sell the MAGA hats.

It looks to me like the Democrats are too vicious over the smell of Trump's blood that they forget the tactics of the democratic game.

Had the invaders found Representatives among gaining access to the Capitol, who knows what would have happened.

Trump spoke and incited the crowd. The crowd followed his instructions... and amidst the invasion, Trump Tweeted that Pence betrayed him! They chanted "Hang Mike Pence" while marching into the building.

So if there was any shadow of a doubt regarding his speech, that tweet of his wiped it off the face of the Earth. The Capitol is being attacked, and Trump tweets Pence betrayed him. That is called orders! Orders so intense, Pence's residence post invasion was fortified like it was wartime!

This isn't politics, Trump violated his oath of office so egregiously, that Congress has to act. It is their job to do so according to the Constitution.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think your lack of understanding of USA culture is showing again.

And I have mentioned over and over again that I am not American. I am looking at it from outside USA and this is the impression I'm getting. Yes, I'm aware that my grasp of American culture isn't great. That's why International discussion forums are INTERNATIONAL

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, the only punishment for a President who abuses his power, incites an insurrection, violates his oath of office, and is derelict in his duties should be the chance he might not be re-elected?

Even the writers of the constitution themselves didn’t believe that.

 

[TomC]

I think your lack of understanding of USA culture is showing again.

And I have mentioned over and over again that I am not American. I am looking at it from outside USA and this is the impression I'm getting. Yes, I'm aware that my grasp of American culture isn't great. That's why International discussion forums are INTERNATIONAL

I know that you're a Swede living in Denmark. It's the skewed observations and judgements you describe. Did you actually read what I posted?
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

If the American voters approve of Trump then isn't he doing a good job?

just because X% of the electorate wants him to do something does not make it something he can legally do.

Holding him accountable is an important point.

. The democrats pissing on the memory of a fallen president, is not a good look for the democrats.

1] he's not falken. He still has a lot of political influence
2] the democrats ran on a "hold him accountable" platform. So, answered campaign promises are a goid thing

Why not let the American voters decide if they want Trump back, rather than this legalistic finagling?

we can actually have both. If impeachment fails, and thd various felonies he can no longer dismiss, it'll be up to the voters.

If I was a Trump supporter and I saw the impeachment happening, I might think it looks like the Democrats not trusting democracy and is trying to derail the democratic process of electing presidents. Right now it'd be an easy story to sell the MAGA hats.

yes, but the democrats were not put in office to appease tgge Trumpists.

It looks to me like the Democrats are too vicious over the smell of Trump's blood that they forget the tactics of the democratic game.

noted.

I fail to see how impeaching Trump will persuade any current Trump supporters to come over to the Democrat side. If anything it'll just piss them off more and want to vote Republican again.

Okay.

Where did anyone say this was to recruit new voters from the right....?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think your lack of understanding of USA culture is showing again.

And I have mentioned over and over again that I am not American. I am looking at it from outside USA and this is the impression I'm getting. Yes, I'm aware that my grasp of American culture isn't great. That's why International discussion forums are INTERNATIONAL

I know that you're a Swede living in Denmark. It's the skewed observations and judgements you describe. Did you actually read what I posted?
Tom

It doesn't matter if the Republicans also think he's evil. He was elected.

 

[TomC]

I know that you're a Swede living in Denmark. It's the skewed observations and judgements you describe. Did you actually read what I posted?
Tom

It doesn't matter if the Republicans also think he's evil. He was elected.

Trump has never won an election.
Tom

 

[DrZoidberg]

So, the only punishment for a President who abuses his power, incites an insurrection, violates his oath of office, and is derelict in his duties should be the chance he might not be re-elected?

Even the writers of the constitution themselves didn’t believe that.

It's one thing if the guy is still in power. But he's not. He's out. Those are completely different scenarios.

If somebody wants to be popular it's generally a good strategy to be a gracious winner. Kicking on somebody who is down is not a good look for anyone.

I'd look at it another way. If Trump, despite being a despicable human being, and did incite insurrection, manages to stay popular, it's his enemies that are fucking up. How about the Democrats taking some responsibility for his popularity? Perhaps they've failed some of their voters? Somehow? Politics works in dichotomies. I don't need to be a good person to win. All I need is for my opponent to be a worse person. Both the Republicans and Democrats are spinning all they can. They both have propaganda machines relentlessly making their case. The Democrats aren't at a disadvantage in any way. They have just the same capabilities of spreading their message. Yet, they're struggling with winning people over. Why? How much do you need to suck, to only scrape in a win against Trump, the worst human being on the planet, after Hitler.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I know that you're a Swede living in Denmark. It's the skewed observations and judgements you describe. Did you actually read what I posted?
Tom

It doesn't matter if the Republicans also think he's evil. He was elected.

Trump has never won an election.
Tom

Then how did he become the president in 2016?

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, the only punishment for a President who abuses his power, incites an insurrection, violates his oath of office, and is derelict in his duties should be the chance he might not be re-elected?

Even the writers of the constitution themselves didn’t believe that.

It's one thing if the guy is still in power. But he's not. He's out. Those are completely different scenarios.

That’s not true. And you can listen the House impeachment managers’ description of why the trial is constitutional.

And don’t forget, he was impeached while in office and the only reason he wasn’t tried while in office was because of the stall tactics of his party.

According to your logic, a President could get away politically with anything that he wants to do as long as he resigned just prior to being impeached or convicted.

Listen to the House argument and come back with your response.

 

[TomC]

Trump has never won an election.
Tom

Then how did he become the president in 2016?

Appointed by state legislatures, following the Constitutional process. It's heavily rigged towards rural folks, who tend to be white Christian and conservative.
And poorly informed or educated.

Tom

 

[fromderinside]

And here we are at the two fault lines of modern American elections, the constitution and the vote as a result of a political judgement in the constitution.

Presidents aren't elected to rule. They are elected to defend the constitution. The are elected through a process that sustains advantage for small states against the tyranny of large states that is included in the constitution.

There are other means to ensure small state integrity and power other than giving them advantage by skewing democratic processes. It's shame the nation wasn't chartered as a democracy since we've come to the point of reconciling differences between men after we adjusted the Constitution to provide there should be no legal differences between them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Trump has never won an election.
Tom

Then how did he become the president in 2016?

Appointed by state legislatures, following the Constitutional process. It's heavily rigged towards rural folks, who tend to be white Christian and conservative.
And poorly informed or educated.

Tom

Oh, for fucks sake. There is no democracy in the world that is a perfect direct democracy. Why? Because it doesn't work. Any democratic system that is perfectly democratic will skew the voting in such a way that one region will dictate policy for the rest of the country. And it will become a tyranny of the majority and soon it'll lead to civil war. So they have all instituted mechanics to offset this and to give increased weight to less densely populated regions. This is true for every democracy in the world. USA is not special.

Anybody saying that "USA isn't a democracy, it's a Republic" is an idiot who doesn't understand what democracy is or why it works. Yes, USA a true liberal democracy. The electors doesn't change that. I'd be so bold as to claim that it's one of the more well functioning democracies.

Above all (liberal) democracy is a tradition. It's a way of doing it. If enough people feel empowered and they go and vote and their votes make a difference, we say that it is democratic. What makes a democracy isn't the rules. It's how the rules are used and which rights are respected. If only the Ayatollah would keep his trap shut and not interfere in Iranian politics, we'd call Iran a democracy. But he doesn't. Like the British queen does. That's why we call the UK a democracy and not Iran. In spite of their very similar power structures.

A good example is the fall of the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic had worked great for centuries. Then the tribune Gracchus comes along and reads the rules carefully. Rome needs a land reform. So he uses and exploit to go around the Senate to push it through. Everybody agrees that it was necessary and a good thing to do. But after Gracchus they all start using that same exploit which destabalises the Roman Republic and eventually leads to dictatorship. All democracies are vulnerable to this. They can all easily be derailed if the leadership isn't doing their jobs of representing the people.

Of course Trump won the 2016 election and was elected by the people. Claiming anything else is dumb. I'm sorry for being so blunt. But it needs to be said.

 

[TomC]

Of course Trump won the 2016 election and was elected by the people. Claiming anything else is dumb. I'm sorry for being so blunt. But it needs to be said.

And once again, you demonstrate how superficial your understanding of the USA really is.

By making a blanket assertion about the USA that is in the "not even wrong" category.

Fine. If you prefer to believe your version of the USA political landscape and ignore the reality, you're free to do so.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't understand at this point why zoidberg keeps thinking there is nothing to win here.

I mean shit, Hitler got slapped on the wrist and sent to jail rather than being censured, and then went right back into office, and the rest is history.

DrZ, do you want Hitler? Because what you are asking for is how you get a repeat of Hitler.

Do you seriously think Hitler would have been less dangerous in jail? All that would have changed is that another politician would have been the Nazi figurehead and Hitler would have been the de facto leader. After the Reichstag fire Hitler would be the actual dictator anyway. And we'd have a repeat of history. You know... like Putin did seized control over Russia even though he was blocked from being the president again. Nelson Mandela was sent to jail and branded a terrorist. That didn't prevent him from becoming the president of SA. There's many examples like this. Coming down hard on popular figures has a tendency to backfire.

I don't think you're not going to be able to stop Trump/Trumpism/MAGA with this. Psychologically I think this is free candy to Trump, and will fuel his supporters in the long run. It'll make him more dangerous for American democracy.

I think hitler would have been less dangerous if he had been barred from returning to office.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump incited a riot. When riot happened, he did nothing to assist. He should have resigned that night. He effectively did as Pence appeared to take over operations.

Any time i have resigned i stopped getting paychecks and i wasn't allowed to sit at the big desk anymore.
Ignoring his responsibilities, putting the administration in auto-preside is not resigning.

I think of impeachment as an employee review. This particular employee fucked up big time, on purpose. Did great damage to the company, both in reputation and monetarily, and got other employees killed in the process. The question now is, do we want to give this ex-employee a shot at regaining that employment and retaining the perks of his prior employment?

As far as Dr. Z's comment goes, well, that's just fucked up.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I think your lack of understanding of USA culture is showing again.

And I have mentioned over and over again that I am not American. I am looking at it from outside USA and this is the impression I'm getting. Yes, I'm aware that my grasp of American culture isn't great. That's why International discussion forums are INTERNATIONAL

Discussion implies you're listening to the answers. As is evident in multiple similar threads, that's not happening.

I guess all Danish are just ignorant and don't know anything about outside politics, but insist on telling those who live there what they should do.

You say utterly ignorant things like this:

If the American voters approve of Trump then isn't he doing a good job? Political office is a popularity contest. The democrats pissing on the memory of a fallen president, is not a good look for the democrats.

Why not let the American voters decide if they want Trump back, rather than this legalistic finagling?

Even though it has been pointed out that the one term, failed ex-president 1) never won the popular vote; and 2) never had approval rating anywhere near even the low end of average of the past 8-10 presidents.

Why should anyone entertain your prattling when you exhibit this consistent behavior? This goes beyond 'playing devil's advocate' or any bullshit excuse like that.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I'd look at it another way. If Trump, despite being a despicable human being, and did incite insurrection, manages to stay popular, it's his enemies that are fucking up. How about the Democrats taking some responsibility for his popularity? Perhaps they've failed some of their voters? Somehow? Politics works in dichotomies. I don't need to be a good person to win. All I need is for my opponent to be a worse person. Both the Republicans and Democrats are spinning all they can. They both have propaganda machines relentlessly making their case. The Democrats aren't at a disadvantage in any way. They have just the same capabilities of spreading their message. Yet, they're struggling with winning people over. Why? How much do you need to suck, to only scrape in a win against Trump, the worst human being on the planet, after Hitler.

Funny that you mention Hitler, because you're basically saying it's the Jews' fault for not being more popular.

You really need to evaluate what you're saying here. I can think of other options, but forum rules prevent me from telling you those suggestions.

 

[Treedbear]

...
You say utterly ignorant things like this:

If the American voters approve of Trump then isn't he doing a good job? Political office is a popularity contest. The democrats pissing on the memory of a fallen president, is not a good look for the democrats.

Why not let the American voters decide if they want Trump back, rather than this legalistic finagling?

Even though it has been pointed out that the one term, failed ex-president 1) never won the popular vote; and 2) never had approval rating anywhere near even the low end of average of the past 8-10 presidents.

Why should anyone entertain your prattling when you exhibit this consistent behavior? This goes beyond 'playing devil's advocate' or any bullshit excuse like that.

It does sound like bending over backwards to silence any criticism. I mean, how come it's fine whatever Trump does but the Dems following the constitutional process of impeachment is pissing on the president? How is one the will of the people and not the other? The people have decided and they will decide in the future. If we want that decision to be a wise one shouldn't we have all the facts? I mean, really, isn't that at least in principle a good place to start?