Impeachment II thread

[DrZoidberg]

It's still the primary destination people want to emigrate to. I think that's the best indicator of what nation has it's shit together.

Obviously USA has problems. It's not perfect. But you don't need to be perfect to win this race. You just need to be better than the competition. Every country has plenty of problems.

You clearly misspelled word "kinda". - "USA is kinda working"

Like every nation on Earth.

 

[KeepTalking]

It clearly is not working (see Jan 6th insurrection).

It depends what we are measuring. What I used as a metric was personal freedoms, standard of living and strength of the economy. The insurrection changed none of that. USA is still kicking ass. If this insurrection would have impacted any of that, I'd say you had a point.

The latter two things are not things that will change immediately, and with the former about the only time an insurrection will immediately curtail personal freedoms is when martial law is imposed, otherwise that takes time to change as well. On the other hand, we are already seeing signs that it is changing. In a democratic society, the right to vote is one of the most important personal freedoms. Republican controlled State legislatures are redoubling their efforts to disenfranchise voters in the wake of the insurrection.

We're in the middle of a pandemic. It leads to a predictable pattern of unrest of trouble. In Copenhagen we're having weekly riots in the streets by "The Men in Black" who look like neo-nazis and certainly behave like them. An unfortunate choice of name for your movement if you want to gain support in a country once occupied by Nazi Germany. They're marching angrily about the repressive Covid restrictions. Anyhoo.. Slight derail. My point is that it's like this everywhere.

There was insurrection in Copenhagen this year? You should link me to that shit, it sounds serious. If that is not what you meant, then I feel the need to inform you that it is not like this everywhere.

Some people, like children, don't want to accept that the fact that a plague sweeping the world will impact what we're able to do. And they, like children, lash out in anger.

They didn't lash out in anger and scream "Hang Anthony Fauci!" over how COVID is being handled, they were screaming "Hang Mike Pence!" over Dear Leader legitimately losing an election. Most of those who participated in the insurrection were from States that barely acknowledge the pandemic exists, and are doing fuck all when it comes to COVID restrictions. Once again, you prove you do not know what is going on in the US.

Yeah, it was unfortunate that Covid-19 peaked with president Trump's ungracious loss in the election. He's an idiot. Worst possible guy at the helm in a time of national/global crisis. That's my interpretation of the 6/1 insurrection.

Your interpretation is wrong, and I think that if you are here to engage in an honest dialog about it, as you claim, you should probably start listening to the posters here who actually live in the US.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It clearly is not working (see Jan 6th insurrection).

475K former citizens might also have a quibble....

This isn't evidence that the democracy isn't working.

I think it is.
A better democracy would not haven given Trump the reins in the first place.
If it had, the checks and balances in a better democracy would have had a greater impact on Trump's circus. Limiting his zbility to grift, for instance. Limiting his efforts to populate the leads of agencies with avaricious predators. Limit his ability to fire watchdogs. To treat the AG as his personal attorney.
And a better democracy would have convicted the fucker the first impeachment.
So someone else, anyone else, would have been the crisis manager on the spot.

People will vote for whatever guy they think will do a good job in a crisis.

Ideally, yes. But that's not what was on the mind of Trump voters in2016 or 2020. They still just want(ed) someone to piss off the libtards.

So the next time around they didn't vote for him again. That to me sounds like democracy when it's working exactly as intended.

Nope.
All we did was highlight how much of what was intended depends on all the participants being responsible. The check&balances depend on someone willing to be checked rather than using every possible strategy, including insurrection, to dodge responsibility, or t ge consequences of his actions.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There was insurrection in Copenhagen this year? You should link me to that shit, it sounds serious. If that is not what you meant, then I feel the need to inform you that it is not like this everywhere.

No, not an insurrection. But people are jittery. Luckily Denmark has a prime-minister who's on top of things. I'd say she's the right person in the right place. So she'd put a lid on it. But if she would have fanned the flames and whined on Twitter how unfair the bad people are, who knows.

Some people, like children, don't want to accept that the fact that a plague sweeping the world will impact what we're able to do. And they, like children, lash out in anger.

They didn't lash out in anger and scream "Hang Anthony Fauci!" over how COVID is being handled, they were screaming "Hang Mike Pence!" over Dear Leader legitimately losing an election. Most of those who participated in the insurrection were from States that barely acknowledge the pandemic exists, and are doing fuck all when it comes to COVID restrictions. Once again, you prove you do not know what is going on in the US.

Yes, I'm aware USA has had plenty of unrest and problems unrelated to Covid-19. I highly doubt Covid-19 helped.

Your interpretation is wrong, and I think that if you are here to engage in an honest dialog about it, as you claim, you should probably start listening to the posters here who actually live in the US.

So now I'm dishonest because I have a different opinion than you?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So now I'm dishonest because I have a different opinion than you?

No, he says you're dishonest in not paying any attention to counter-arguments on a discussion board.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So now I'm dishonest because I have a different opinion than you?

No, he says you're dishonest in not paying any attention to counter-arguments on a discussion board.

"No, it isn't" and "you have to live here to understand" are not counter-arguments.

 

[Elixir]

I seriously thought Raskin was just bald in the back.
Why is he wearing a flesh-colored yarmulke?

LOL, me too.

Should have stuck with your first choice, because you have both now failed the "Bald or Skullcap" guessing game, an old Jewish pastime. He is bald, but he has such a high contrast bald spot, it's hard to tell.

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, not an insurrection. But people are jittery. Luckily Denmark has a prime-minister who's on top of things. I'd say she's the right person in the right place. So she'd put a lid on it. But if she would have fanned the flames and whined on Twitter how unfair the bad people are, who knows.

They didn't lash out in anger and scream "Hang Anthony Fauci!" over how COVID is being handled, they were screaming "Hang Mike Pence!" over Dear Leader legitimately losing an election. Most of those who participated in the insurrection were from States that barely acknowledge the pandemic exists, and are doing fuck all when it comes to COVID restrictions. Once again, you prove you do not know what is going on in the US.

Yes, I'm aware USA has had plenty of unrest and problems unrelated to Covid-19. I highly doubt Covid-19 helped.

Your interpretation is wrong, and I think that if you are here to engage in an honest dialog about it, as you claim, you should probably start listening to the posters here who actually live in the US.

So now I'm dishonest because I have a different opinion than you?

I did not say you are dishonest. Honest dialog requires both speaking and listening (at least figuratively), and when one is in a discussion with people regarding a subject with which others have more experience (i.e. Americans regarding American politics), it behooves you to do more listening to their experience, rather than explaining their experience to them. It isn't an accusation of dishonesty so much as a bit of advice on how to avoid being seen as not discussing this topic honestly.

 

[barbos]

Should have stuck with your first choice, because you have both now failed the "Bald or Skullcap" guessing game, an old Jewish pastime. He is bald, but he has such a high contrast bald spot, it's hard to tell.

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

https://forward.com/culture/463870/bald-or-jewish-the-internets-newest-parlor-game/
https://www.thefocus.news/business/is-jamie-raskin-bald/
https://freebeacon.com/satire/jamie-raskin-investigation/
They say he was not wearing anything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So now I'm dishonest because I have a different opinion than you?

No, he says you're dishonest in not paying any attention to counter-arguments on a discussion board.

"No, it isn't" and "you have to live here to understand" are not counter-arguments.

Never said tgey were.

But once you have decided your position, on anything, no one can ever tell you anything to dissuade you.

 

[Gospel]

My prediction for Trump's legal team today will be a maximum 2hrs of,

1) Avoiding that stupid constitutional argument.

2) Videos of Democrats making statements that could be interpreted as calls for violence begging the question "Should we hold them accountable for the BLM riots across America? If not, then why are we holding Trump accountable for an insurrection?

3) Videos of Trump denouncing violence & white supremacy while illustrating that it was violent white supremacists that attacked the capital.

IMO, that's all they really have.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1) Avoiding that stupid constitutional argument.

Wait, which one? 1st Amendment Right to Incite Riot? (Which he TOTALLY did not do, but couldn't be punished for it, anyway.)

Or quote mining 'impeachment unconstitutional after transition' lines from the 'impeachment very constitutional even after' scholar?

 

[Gun Nut]

1) Avoiding that stupid constitutional argument.

Wait, which one? 1st Amendment Right to Incite Riot? (Which he TOTALLY did not do, but couldn't be punished for it, anyway.)

Or quote mining 'impeachment unconstitutional after transition' lines from the 'impeachment very constitutional even after' scholar?

I am completely baffled by the "can't impeach a former president" argument. Trump was impeached (both times) WHILE IN OFFICE. This is the TRIAL, not the IMPEACHMENT. Obvi-fucking-ously.

 

[crazyfingers]

1) Avoiding that stupid constitutional argument.

Wait, which one? 1st Amendment Right to Incite Riot? (Which he TOTALLY did not do, but couldn't be punished for it, anyway.)

Or quote mining 'impeachment unconstitutional after transition' lines from the 'impeachment very constitutional even after' scholar?

I am completely baffled by the "can't impeach a former president" argument. Trump was impeached (both times) WHILE IN OFFICE. This is the TRIAL, not the IMPEACHMENT. Obvi-fucking-ously.

Yes, also I read a story on one of the reputable news sites though I can't remember where, that lower officials have been impeached / convicted after leaving government. There is precedent that government officials can be impeached / convicted after their terms have expired and so I don't know any reason why a former president would be excluded from that precedent.

 

[southernhybrid]

I am completely baffled by the "can't impeach a former president" argument. Trump was impeached (both times) WHILE IN OFFICE. This is the TRIAL, not the IMPEACHMENT. Obvi-fucking-ously.

Yes, also I read a story on one of the reputable news sites though I can't remember where, that lower officials have been impeached / convicted after leaving government. There is precedent that government officials can be impeached / convicted after their terms have expired and so I don't know any reason why a former president would be excluded from that precedent.

I either read that or it was brought up during the Democrats during the prosecution of this impeachment case. I don't believe that enough Republicans will be on board to convict Trump. I also heard an interesting point earlier today by one of the liberal MSNBC pundits. She said that she heard that some Republicans are afraid of the death threats etc. that they and their families will receive if they convict Trump. Sadly, there may be some truth to that.

 

[blastula]

Trump's first lawyer today, Michael van der Veen, last year filed a case against Trump for suppressing mail-in voting. He should be a witness for the prosecution, and you can tell he doesn't even believe the things he's saying.

 

[Keith&Co.]

1) Avoiding that stupid constitutional argument.

Wait, which one? 1st Amendment Right to Incite Riot? (Which he TOTALLY did not do, but couldn't be punished for it, anyway.)

Or quote mining 'impeachment unconstitutional after transition' lines from the 'impeachment very constitutional even after' scholar?

I am completely baffled by the "can't impeach a former president" argument. Trump was impeached (both times) WHILE IN OFFICE. This is the TRIAL, not the IMPEACHMENT. Obvi-fucking-ously.

This comes to us from the same people that invented a 'tradition' that Presidents don t fill a SCOTUS seat a year before the election, but it's okay 8 days before....

 

[Swammerdami]

I seldom agree with DrZoidberg; and I do disagree with the conclusions he draws in this thread. However in one paragraph he is quite correct:

When ex-colonies became democratic they copied the structure from their colonial home country, or USA's. So we got a natural experiment comparing the systems. The South American countries all copied USA's constitution and it turned out to be extremely easy to derail for powerful landowners. Not a good track record. But we learned from the other experiments in ex-colonial democracy that getting the rules right was actually not the most important thing. There's a whole bunch of social and cultural factors that need to be present for democracy to work. [Swammi's emphasis]

Yes. Systems similar to the U.S.'s "Presidential" system have often led to the dysfunctional oligarchies seen in "banana republics." And as DrZoidberg implies, these failures are due more to social factors rather than mechanical flaws in the U.S. model. (Trivial fixes like popular vote for President are not a solution.)

In fact, whether the Presidential system is intrinsically good or bad, the U.S. did rather well for over two centuries. There were hitches along the way, e.g. Civil War, but these can't be blamed on the system mechanics.

And for most of its history, the U.S. had exactly two strong parties, usually "big tent" parties. Obviously there are drawbacks to a Two-Party System, but it's worked rather well for the U.S. over the centuries.

But DrZoidberg fails to draw the conclusion that his own argument points to.

Nope. I'm a pragmatist. If something is working then don't fuck with it. USA is clearly working.

Is the USA working? Sure, it's very rich and powerful but much of that wealth and power is left over from its ascendancy after the World Wars. Trump didn't build America's great Universities, and neither did Obama, Bush or Clinton. Companies like Disney, Intel, Microsoft provide great wealth and power but, again, this wealth is inertial — the companies were already powerful in the 20th century. The U.S. has fair infrastructure, but much of that is 60+ years old. To a large extent U.S. power and wealth is left-over from its great past, before its politics became dysfunctional.

So, the use of the present tense in "USA is clearly working" misses the point. The U.S. is the only developed country that fails to provide its citizens with health care or other safety nets (e.g. subsidized childcare). Racism is rampant in America. Partisan gridlock prevents needed investments. Democracy in the U.S. is failing: Control is increasingly turned over to the "powerful landowners" DrZoidberg mentions in the quoted paragraph.

There is no solution in sight. Convicting Trump would be a good step — it might alert some of the Yahoos that their guy is a criminal — but I doubt it'll do much good. However DrZoidberg's idea of leaving the criminal unprosecuted because he was elected is a non-starter for most rational Americans.

 

[Gospel]

1) Avoiding that stupid constitutional argument.

Wait, which one? 1st Amendment Right to Incite Riot? (Which he TOTALLY did not do, but couldn't be punished for it, anyway.)

Or quote mining 'impeachment unconstitutional after transition' lines from the 'impeachment very constitutional even after' scholar?

Both. It's a waste of time, dude is impeached, it's an impeachment trial now. lol Talking about whether or not the impeachment is legitimate is painfully dumb because there is nothing in the constitution that says a president can be (and take note that I actually have to make this word up out of thin air) unimpeached.

 

[Gospel]

to be clear, the 1st Amendment is a legit argument to bring up in the trial itself in defense of Trump and all of us. But any 1st amendment argument against the impeachment itself is dumb.