Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

Generally as a rule of thumb I think we should stay away from doing unpopular things going into election years. I try to be a data guy and the data is very clear about this.

 

 

.....only if a smarter play that better serves the republic is an alternative, right?

 

Because if you actually believe that in general without qualifications, well, that's one of the biggest crises of politics. Especially because popularity is one of the worst possible metrics for smart decisions.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

.....only if a smarter play that better serves the republic is an alternative, right? 

 

Because if you actually believe that in general without qualifications, well, that's one of the biggest crises of politics. Especially because popularity is one of the worst possible metrics for smart decisions. 

 

This is obviously out of pragmatism. I just don't see what impeachment gets anyone. Of course if it would work we should do it. I want Trump out of the Oval Office yesterday.

 

The bolded isn't always true. Something like 9 out of 10 people support expanded background checks prior to buying a firearm. Medicare-for-All and improving the ACA are very popular. Gerrymandering is extremely unpopular except with those who use it to their benefit. Does that necessarily mean improving healthcare or improving gun safety are bad or gerrymandering is good?

 

Popularity can be very instructive in making political decisions. It is just more information with which to make decisions.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

The bolded isn't always true. Something like 9 out of 10 people support expanded background checks prior to buying a firearm. Medicare-for-All and improving the ACA are very popular. Gerrymandering is extremely unpopular except with those who use it to their benefit. Does that necessarily mean improving healthcare or improving gun safety are bad or gerrymandering is good?

 

 

No it doesn't mean that. What I am saying is that there is no causal relationship between popularity and good policy. Sometimes there is a correlation, sometimes there is an inverse corrolation. But when something is good policy and it is popular, that is a coincidence and it would still be equally as good of policy even if only 5% of people supported it. 

 

(I can anticipate some responses to this so understand I am arguing this ideologically as if it's in a vacuum. Of course popularity and how well something is received plays a role in policy being good because it makes it easier to implement and run smoothly and you can't completely extrapolate the two).

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Landlord said:

No it doesn't mean that. What I am saying is that there is no causal relationship between popularity and good policy. Sometimes there is a correlation, sometimes there is an inverse corrolation. But when something is good policy and it is popular, that is a coincidence and it would still be equally as good of policy even if only 5% of people supported it.  

 

(I can anticipate some responses to this so understand I am arguing this ideologically as if it's in a vacuum. Of course popularity and how well something is received plays a role in policy being good because it makes it easier to implement and run smoothly and you can't completely extrapolate the two). 

 

OK, everything of what you said is reasonable.

 

I think it's a discussion about populism vs. whatever the opposite of that is (i.e., governance solely by our elected officials, separate from the wishes of the people). Obviously elected officials who don't care what the public thinks and just do whatever they think is best would be very bad, but so would governance solely based on public sentiment and what's popular. We need both to strike a good balance and produce a functional government.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

No it doesn't mean that. What I am saying is that there is no causal relationship between popularity and good policy. Sometimes there is a correlation, sometimes there is an inverse corrolation. But when something is good policy and it is popular, that is a coincidence and it would still be equally as good of policy even if only 5% of people supported it. 

 

(I can anticipate some responses to this so understand I am arguing this ideologically as if it's in a vacuum. Of course popularity and how well something is received plays a role in policy being good because it makes it easier to implement and run smoothly and you can't completely extrapolate the two).

 

 

Agree completely with this. I’d argue it’s the #1 problem with Democracy and pseudo-Democracy. I’d say it’s tied with $ in politics. Many politicians care only about getting re-elected and making $ from their political role. That isn’t good when it comes to making policy that helps people. We need politicians who will do what they think is best for the country regardless of whether it’s popular.

 

 

That said, if all things are equal or you can’t decide what’s best, popularity may as well be taken into account. Impeachment isn’t going to do anything because the GOP is failing in their job to protect the country’s best interests and won’t convict him.

Link to comment

7 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

OK, everything of what you said is reasonable.

 

I think it's a discussion about populism vs. whatever the opposite of that is (i.e., governance solely by our elected officials, separate from the wishes of the people). Obviously elected officials who don't care what the public thinks and just do whatever they think is best would be very bad, but so would governance solely based on public sentiment and what's popular. We need both to strike a good balance and produce a functional government.

 

 

I don’t think it would be “very bad.” We need people to do exactly that. We just need to vote in the right people in the first place. They can still get voted out. We need politicians to do the right thing even if it upsets people or gets them voted out. If we had those people, Trump would be gone already. The only reason impeachment’s unpopular is because everyone knows it won’t remove Trump because of the GOP.

 

I remember reading when they started limiting water usage in Australia it was really unpopular but they had to happen for the good of the people. That’s the kind if thing I think of.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

I don’t think it would be “very bad.” We need people to do exactly that. We just need to vote in the right people in the first place. They can still get voted out. We need politicians to do the right thing even if it upsets people or gets them voted out. I remember reading when they started limiting water usage in Australia it was really unpopular but they had to happen for the good of the people. That’s the kind if thing I think of. 

 

Well yeah, you're right. The whole thing is predicated on having elected officials who are actually there to do what's best for the country and the people and not just make money like you've said above. If that type of corruption seeps into their decision making things are pretty much lost.

 

I guess what I was saying is that I do think there's virtue in reading public sentiment and understanding what types of ideas and policies the public wants. But we need elected officials who are willing to make tough decisions and take tough votes (the ACA would be a good example, because voting for it lost a lot of people their seats), even if unpopular, when it's the right thing to do for the country.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I think I’m on the impeachment bandwagon if impeachment means they must have a trial in the Senate, especially if it’s not McConnell in charge. 

 

The chief justice presides over the trial, but it still takes a 2/3 majority of senators to convict.

Link to comment

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I think I’m on the impeachment bandwagon if impeachment means they must have a trial in the Senate, especially if it’s not McConnell in charge. 

 

Edit: Nevermind. They can just change the rules and not have a trial.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

Yea I saw that later. The above tweet is technically true but because McConnell sets the rules it doesn't really matter. It is mandatory that they have a trial, but what that means exactly isn't clear. 

 

As far as not getting a conviction, who cares? I keep hearing about consequences of impeachment, but what consequences did republicans face for impeaching Clinton? He didn't get convicted either but did they not go on to retake the presidency and control of congress in the next election cycle? 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

The chief justice presides over the trial, but it still takes a 2/3 majority of senators to convict.

 

 

I know. But it would be good if Trump’s associates or possibly even Trump were to appear (wishful thinking I know).

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

And yet, Trump is almost begging the Dems to impeach him in some ways.  He thinks he can turn it against the Dems and portray himself as the victim and the dems as the villain.

 

Quote

 

An American University professor who has correctly predicted the last nine presidential elections says President Trump will win the 2020 election unless congressional Democrats, “grow a spine,” CNN reported

Allan Lichtman, a political historian, said Democrats only have a shot at the White House if they begin impeachment proceedings against Trump, calling the decision both “constitutionally” and “politically” right in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

And yet, Trump is almost begging the Dems to impeach him in some ways.  He thinks he can turn it against the Dems and portray himself as the victim and the dems as the villain.

 

 

Let him try. If Trump has to testify at any point its over for him. We know his strategy is to flip it on the other side but that strategy doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If he is pressed he doesn't have answers except to cry about the other side so I don't see why we don't put all the pressure on. He is bound to crack.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...