What will happen from the impeachment?

[laughing dog]

Since I did not claim anyone was impervious to evidence, your claim is a straw man.

Actually you said:

You are free to promote your conjectures as conjectures, but there is no evidence that more evidence against Trump will do anything to change the minds of senators or a significant number of voters.

The fact that they're human is evidence (plus some other stuff I pointed out). Or else, the fact that they're human is taken as background so that the prior is high enough that you would need evidence against it....

You are bootstrapping.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually you said:


The fact that they're human is evidence (plus some other stuff I pointed out). Or else, the fact that they're human is taken as background so that the prior is high enough that you would need evidence against it....

You are bootstrapping.

No.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

*Huh? What is uncharacteristic of humans?

For example, being insensitive to any amount of evidence. People committed to an ideology/religion/political cause, etc., are often epistemically irrational to a degree that depend on the case. Their irrationality results in their failing to realize that their favorite views are unwarranted (and often false), and usually they never change their minds because the amount of evidence that would be required to persuade them is far more not only than what would be rationally required, but than what is available as well, but it is very rare for them to be epistemically irrational to any arbitrary degree so that no amount of evidence - no matter what it is - would persuade them (it can happen, but it requires a level of mental damage that is not encountered in most Republicans and/or Trump supporters).

What are you talking about? Most people on the planet are religious and irrational. It's an observable fact. We are lucky when we can be rational and it requires far more than just throwing evidence at them. People have to want to make inferences, they have to stop putting stock in faith which most conservatives have a hard time with, but more importantly there is a whole conservative media machine and echo chamber that facts don't necessarily make it into and if they do they come with a frame. Seeking out primary sources, spending enormous time going through them, and thinking critically are a rare combination of traits. Pretending those rare traits are collectively common in humans is dehumanizing humans and ignoring the postmodern environment humans operate within.

Of course it's also true that many humans have some capacity for reason. But I am not sure how you can quantify chatacteristics of people into making a prediction. My own prediction isn't about quantifying voters but instead looking at politicians, their self-intetest, and how they could try to have their cake and eat it, too...which is why my thought is they will settle on a meaningless censure.

Actually, people are religious, but for the most part, in their lives they are rational. Otherwise, they would not be able to function. But when their religion/ideology/political cause gets in the way (and in a number of other ocassions), they are epistemically irrational - but very rarely to any arbitrary degree. Epistemic irrationality comes in degrees. What is uncharacteristic of humans would be to be unresponsive to any arbitrary amount of evidence (or information, to be more precise).

As for quantifying characteristics, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't need to give the degree of epistemic irrationality a number to know it comes in degrees (and the same for immorality of behaviors, etc.). For example, it's not the same the YEC who has never seen any evidence from evolution but would accept it if she saw it (she's still being irrational for being a YEC, since that belief is not warranted) as the YEC who has rejected arguments with good evidence. But even the latter is in most cases not being irrational to any arbitrary degree, as debates with Christians show: indeed, if you debate Christians who actually understand evolution and the arguments/evidence supporting it, you will find that they are nearly always not YEC, and if they were YEC in the past, they have changed the flavor of their Christianity to one that accepts common descent.

As for a "conservative media machine", I do not know what you'd call a "machine" or where you're going with this, but in any case, there are outlets biased to different degrees towards conservatisms of different stripes, as there are outlets based towards different sort of leftism. Mainstream media, when it holds irrational beliefs, does so much more frequently in a left-biased manner than a conservative-biased manner, though of course, smaller and much more committed outlets - on the left or the right - have a far stronger bias and some actually make things up.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Unlike most of the rest here I think Trump will resign when the drip drip drip of proven allegations drives Republicans to go to Trump and tell him he is going to be impeached if he doesn't resign.

He already knows he's going to be impeached. He's not probably not afraid, as he counts on winning the Senate trial.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Further evidence of many Trump supporters (professional politicians or otherwise) are responsive to evidence - even if one needs more than what would be rationally required - was given by Elixir earlier, with his point about "galloping goalposts".

"There was no quid pro quo"
"There may have been a quid pro quo but it's not Trump's idea"
"Okay there WAS a quid pro quo but still not Trump's idea - no first hand evidence."
"Okay, there was a quid pro quo and it was Trump's idea but it's not illegal"
"Okay it might have been illegal but it's not a high crime"
etc etc etc etc

Clearly, those are examples of people responding to evidence. Otherwise, they would always have stuck to "there was no quid pro quo". Now, some people do stick to it. Again, it's a matter of the amount of evidence.

However, evidence regarding qui-pro-quo is not evidence about the right sort of thing, as it is open to many Republicans to think that there was a public interest in investigating Biden, so it's allegedly legal. What Democrats would need is a huge amount of evidence of something far worse, committed using the office of POTUS. They will almost certainly not get that.

 

[Trausti]

What conservotards see:
View attachment 25039

What's actually there:
View attachment 25038

No wonder so many of their posts are such specious nonsense.

Look at all these conservotards.

‘Rocky’ shock for China makes Trump Hong Kong hero

That the left would side with the Communists is hardly surprising.

 

[laughing dog]

What conservotards see:
View attachment 25039

What's actually there:
View attachment 25038

No wonder so many of their posts are such specious nonsense.

Look at all these conservotards.

‘Rocky’ shock for China makes Trump Hong Kong hero

That the left would side with the Communists is hardly surprising.

My father - a lifelong Republican - wants Trump gone. Unlike Trump and most of his Republican defenders, he fought in combat against Communists. At a minimum, your observation is incredibly vacuous, even judging by your posting history.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Elixir]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Unlike most of the rest here I think Trump will resign when the drip drip drip of proven allegations drives Republicans to go to Trump and tell him he is going to be impeached if he doesn't resign.

He already knows he's going to be impeached. He's not probably not afraid, as he counts on winning the Senate trial.

If he winds up impeached and kicked out, and then also prosecuted criminally and serves time in jail, would he be the first US president to do so? Nixon was pardoned right?

 

[laughing dog]

Unlike most of the rest here I think Trump will resign when the drip drip drip of proven allegations drives Republicans to go to Trump and tell him he is going to be impeached if he doesn't resign.

He already knows he's going to be impeached. He's not probably not afraid, as he counts on winning the Senate trial.

If he winds up impeached and kicked out, and then also prosecuted criminally and serves time in jail, would he be the first US president to do so? Nixon was pardoned right?

Nixon was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford became the VP when the man on the winning ticket, Spiro Agnew, resigned over proof of his corruption during his stint as governor of Maryland.

 

[Gun Nut]

Unlike most of the rest here I think Trump will resign when the drip drip drip of proven allegations drives Republicans to go to Trump and tell him he is going to be impeached if he doesn't resign.

He already knows he's going to be impeached. He's not probably not afraid, as he counts on winning the Senate trial.

.. and the 2020 election... not on merit.. on the hard work of the Democrats that will skillfully pluck disaster from the talons of success, as usual.
Latest evidence of this.. The "No Malarkey" tour. Nuff said.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That said, the amount of evidence against Trump that would be required to persuade enough Republican senators is a lot more than what has been shown so far (again, I'm talking about evidence against him, not against him on this particular matter; more evidence that he demanded that Biden be investigated will not work). I think it's very unlikely that anything like that would happen. Whether he stays in power will depend on the next elections.

The Democrats have adequately demonstrated two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The "transcript" is enough to show he communicated to Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating his political opponent. And Trump told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas. Among other supporting evidence for both of these articles. Why do you think more evidence is needed for Republican Senators? Are you dehumanizing them or are you saying there isn't enough evidence for you?

 

[Gun Nut]

If he winds up impeached and kicked out, and then also prosecuted criminally and serves time in jail, would he be the first US president to do so? Nixon was pardoned right?

Nixon was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford became the VP when the man on the winning ticket, Spiro Agnew, resigned over proof of his corruption during his stint as governor of Maryland.

An interesting tidbit I recently came across... After Ford pardoned Nixon, which he says he did so that "the country can just move on", his approval rating dropped through the floor, and allegations of corruption and collusion with Nixon was alleged.... this resulted in the third time in US history that a sitting president testified before the House (Ford was called).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That said, the amount of evidence against Trump that would be required to persuade enough Republican senators is a lot more than what has been shown so far (again, I'm talking about evidence against him, not against him on this particular matter; more evidence that he demanded that Biden be investigated will not work). I think it's very unlikely that anything like that would happen. Whether he stays in power will depend on the next elections.

The Democrats have adequately demonstrated two articles: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The "transcript" is enough to show he communicated to Zelensky that he wanted him to work with Giuliani on investigating his political opponent. And Trump told his people to refuse Congressional subpoenas. Among other supporting evidence for both of these articles. Why do you think more evidence is needed for Republican Senators? Are you dehumanizing them or are you saying there isn't enough evidence for you?

I think they are looking at the GOP with a very optimistic light.

Simply look at the Kavanaugh hearing. When truth wasn't working, what did the GOP turn to? Lambasting 'the process'. Getting angry, uppity, making accusations of their opponents.

They didn't even begin this process via examination of evidence. The GOP is fishing for red herrings: Adam Schiff, the Whistleblower, suggesting the Dems made Sondland change his testimony (not fear of going to prison). Their performance indicates they know Trump is guilty as all heck and the only option they have is obstruct, obfuscate, smokescreen.

To suggest any additional evidence (on top of the transcript which is pretty much as clear as it gets without Trump blurting out, 'No investigation into Biden, no missiles!') would influence the GOP is ridiculous. We know that there is a reason the White House is obstructing... otherwise Mulvaney could go to Congress and clear the President's tarnished reputation as a straight man *cough*.

The GOP says this is going too fast (going about as fast as the Clinton impeachment). They say they want to let the courts decide if people need to testify... we already know that they are legally compelled to. And, in the end... if they did testify... and Mulvaney said that the payment was stopped because Trump was trying to squeeze the Ukrainian President... the GOP would conclude, 'what the President did was wrong, but doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.'

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As I noted in the other thread, BOTH of these articles are things every Republican wants the Office of the President to retain. They want the President to be able to obstruct Congress and they want the President to be able to enlist any dirty trick to get elected. Why? Because they know both of these things would ONLY be used by someone as despicable as they are; iow, Republicans.

We all knew the Republicans weren't going to vote to remove, but this just gives them the briar patch.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As I noted in the other thread, BOTH of these articles are things every Republican wants the Office of the President to retain. They want the President to be able to obstruct Congress and they want the President to be able to enlist any dirty trick to get elected. Why? Because they know both of these things would ONLY be used by someone as despicable as they are; iow, Republicans.

We all knew the Republicans weren't going to vote to remove, but this just gives them the briar patch.

So once this gets into the Senate and there is a vote on the trial result, you think there will be no censure and no conviction. Absolutely nothing, right?

 

[Elixir]

Being totally pissed off at everything and everyone and throwing a tantrum about it whenever anyone tries to educate them - THAT is what 38-42% of the electorate identifies with. They love it. Add some cheating and invite a bit of subversion and foreign interference, and voila - a winning recipe. No majority needed.

It's almost certainly going to work again, if the Dems proceed to give the Senate the chance to proclaim Cheato's purity, perfection and innocence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Being totally pissed off at everything and everyone and throwing a tantrum about it whenever anyone tries to educate them - THAT is what 38-42% of the electorate identifies with. They love it. Add some cheating and invite a bit of subversion and foreign interference, and voila - a winning recipe. No majority needed.

It's almost certainly going to work again, if the Dems proceed to give the Senate the chance to proclaim Cheato's purity, perfection and innocence.

The people who wrote the constitution were pretty smart. They constructed a government based on the observation that people are dangerous, that all people are dangerous and that the most important thing is to not let any person or group of people have too much power.

It's working pretty well at this point. Admittedly, Trumpo doesn't understand how this works.

 

[Elixir]

the most important thing is to not let any person or group of people have too much power.

A lovely sentiment, but isn't it a little late for that? The Senate has already agreed to turn a blind eye to every criminal act this "president" commits no matter how heinous. If anyone thinks that their negligence hasn't already conferred "too much power" upon the Trump Crime Syndicate, they need their head examined. Short of an assassination or meteor strike, I see no mechanism that is going to remove Trump while he still breathes - not impeachment, not elections - NOTHING.