Impeachment Hearings

[MigL]

One simple question for you guys, INow and Zap, as Democrat supporters, how did you react when D Kucinich wanted to draw up a list of articles of impeachment against then President B Obama, for things like being born outside the US, allowing people to use bathrooms based on gender identity, the alleged cover up of the Benghazi attack, and not enforcing immigration laws ?

Did it leave a bad taste in your mouth ?
Did it give you the impression that Republicans were just out to 'get' the President ?
Did it negatively impact your opinion of Republicans in general; even more so than previously held opinion ?
Did it lead to even greater polarization between Liberals and Conservatives in the US ?

Given that this impeachment effort will also go nowhere, is it that big a stretch to be of the opinion that the result will be the same for right leaning voters, and cause further polarization. And if it is seen in the same light, as merely an attempt to discredit a President ( as Republicans tried with B Obama ), is it a bigger stretch to think it might 'sour' some centrist voters on the failed ( spiteful ? ) Democrat attempt such that they vote for D Trump again in 2020 ?

[iNow]

Perhaps all of this off-topic distraction about bias in polls can be split into its own thread instead of side tracking us all in the impeachment discussion?

29 minutes ago, MigL said:

how did you react when D Kucinich wanted to draw up a list of articles of impeachment against then President B Obama, for things like being born outside the US, allowing people to use bathrooms based on gender identity, the alleged cover up of the Benghazi attack, and not enforcing immigration laws ?

Did it leave a bad taste in your mouth ?
Did it give you the impression that Republicans were just out to 'get' the President ?
Did it negatively impact your opinion of Republicans in general; even more so than previously held opinion ?
Did it lead to even greater polarization between Liberals and Conservatives in the US ?

Yes. Those things were true then as they're true for many now with Trump. I don't think the polling should dictate how we proceed, though. There are certain principles worth standing for, and there are some clear important differences between the Obama witch-hunt and this effort with Trump.

The Obama team gave documents to Congress when requested. They testified when subpeona'd. HRC herself sat in front of congress for something like 12 hours and answered every question they had. Trump is stonewalling. 

The nature of the issues are also different. Obama was NOT born in Kenya. The court supported allowing transgender individuals to use the bathroom of their choice (as did the 14th amendment). Benghazi showed areas where mistakes were made, but didn't show any blatant crimes or abuses of power or bribery, etc.

You're conflating jaywalking with double homicide. The difference in scope/scale of the actions is important, and there will be polarization no matter how well supported and documented the events are (truth doesn't always matter to everyone... you can't use "it's polarizing" as a reason to avoid upholding ones oath to the constitution itself).

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

is it a bigger stretch to think it might 'sour' some centrist voters on the failed ( spiteful ? ) Democrat attempt such that they vote for D Trump again in 2020 ?

It might, but as per the above, it's not relevant. You're gaming out the politics of the situation instead of focusing on the principle of it. Also, there is not some huge group of people who were thinking of voting for Elizabeth Warren who are suddenly going to vote for Trump b/c the hearings seem partisan. It's a red herring.

Support among independents is up, too... further evidence against your core argument here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, YJ02 said:

Well I tried that. Upthread you will see where I cited an article from national review. The response was national review was not valid.

Who said that, and where?

I see only two responses to that post (quoting the link), and neither discounts the source the way you claim. One notes that none of the objections that are cited are valid. i.e. it attacks the (lack of) content in the piece. 

 

Quote

well in political discussion, which is based on opinion, what is valid? it is all subjective. A pro Trump person throws in something from FOX or Newsmax and they are --rightly--told that it is right leaning.

No, it's not all subjective. Most of it is not. Underlying it all are facts, and one can expect that any purported factual claims can be supported. 

Quote

if people here are continuing to use news sites and articles as evidence,i am sorry, that is just not evidence. they are only evidence of someone's opinion based on however that news source leans politically.

I think you have some work to do, learning the difference between opinion and fact.

One of the other big problems in these discussion is people having this confusion, and asserting opinion as fact.

 

[YJ02]

i signed up here because i have some science interests. came here to look for topics and answers/opinions on things i cant get at other places i am on.

but, what did I see when I came?The Big Bright shiny object of 'impeachment'

as a person with several degrees in the social sciences and a masters, I could just not resist

but i will TRY to refrain from it..too much entrenchment-every forum and social media site, not just here- I am just going to go about what I came here for and look for those science topics... sorry for the mess

<< oh, and the ST reference was just that,a reference >>>

 

have a great day...really

[swansont]

I disagree with the characterization of "entrenchment" when we're talking about objectivity. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, YJ02 said:

but i will TRY to refrain from it..too much entrenchment-every forum and social media site, not just here- I am just going to go about what I came here for and look for those science topics... sorry for the mess

!

Moderator Note

Apology accepted. We can help you get over those entrenched stances you have and take a more objective, reasoned approach to almost any subject. 

 

1 hour ago, YJ02 said:

i signed up here because i have some science interests. came here to look for topics and answers/opinions on things i cant get at other places i am on.

!

Moderator Note

You came to the right place. We try to make the distinction between fact and opinion, and approach every subject with as much rigor as possible, using scientific methodology where applicable. And we don't get personal, since civility is our #1 rule. VERY different from other sites.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Given that this impeachment effort will also go nowhere, is it that big a stretch to be of the opinion that the result will be the same for right leaning voters, and cause further polarization.

I feel pretty confident that it will indeed lead to further polarization.

Quote

And if it is seen in the same light, as merely an attempt to discredit a President ( as Republicans tried with B Obama ), is it a bigger stretch to think it might 'sour' some centrist voters on the failed ( spiteful ? ) Democrat attempt such that they vote for D Trump again in 2020 ?

I could be wrong of course but I suspect that a reasonable review of the evidence will lead people to conclude that Trump did indeed commit impeachable acts. I also feel that a majority of Trump supporters either are not reasonable in their review of the evidence, or do not care one way or the other what the evidence says.

It is also my opinion that people who were on the fence and now choose to vote for Trump due to the impeachment inquiry, are not terribly reasonable people.

In other words, the impeachment will have a negligible effect on the outcome of the election.

However, my opinion of who is reasonable and who is not is irrelevant.

Some will vote for Trump because he could indeed shoot someone on 5th Ave. and get away with it. Some will vote for him simply because he has an "R" next to his name on the ballot. Some because they hate liberals/liberalism that much.  I think that anyone who is a centrist and votes for Trump due to the impeachment was not really on the fence in the first place.

And none of that has any impact on whether or not I think the impeachment should proceed. I believe the evidence supports the assertion that Trump committed impeachable offenses and therefore should be impeached. I don't care if the people involved are biased against him or not as long as the evidence supports an impeachment. I don't care how many people are offended by impeachment. I didn't care how many people were offended by the Civil Rights Act, or the recognition of the rights of gays to marry. I think some things you do because it is the right thing to do.

[rangerx]

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Some will vote for Trump because he could indeed shoot someone on 5th Ave. and get away with it. Some will vote for him simply because he has an "R" next to his name on the ballot. Some because they hate liberals/liberalism that much.  I think that anyone who is a centrist and votes for Trump due to the impeachment was not really on the fence in the first place.

That's right. It can used as a cheap talking point to come across as objective. They were probably never really on the fence. It's the swing voter that makes the 1-2% difference determining election outcomes.

Trump did not win the popular vote. He has lost farmers, workers, white women, those who lost healthcare and certainly has not garnered much if any minority community support.

Those titling Trump as a result of impeachment being a sideshow and little else are few and far between.

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, rangerx said:

He has lost farmers

Side point, but this is not entirely true. If we're going to keep saying facts matter, we need to get the facts right ourselves.

Trumps massive welfare payments of $28 Billion dollars to bailout farmers seems to have prevented his support among them from plummeting (even though bankruptcies among farmers are up 24% YoY and continuing to grow, plus total farm debt is at all time highs).

 

His support among farmers is clearly at risk, but it is not yet currently lost: https://www.card.iastate.edu/products/publications/synopsis/?p=1294

Quote

Our results show that despite the immediate negative economic impacts they have experienced, over 56% were still somewhat (38%) or strongly supportive (22%) of President Trump

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/10/778097948/farm-bankruptcies-surge

Quote

A recent report from the American Farm Bureau Federation says the number of farms filing for bankruptcy is up 24% from the previous year. It's the steepest rise the farming industry has seen in years, and the total farm debt for 2019 is expected to hit $416 billion, a record high.

 

[rangerx]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

Side point, but this is not entirely true. If we're going to keep saying facts matter, we need to get the facts right ourselves.

Trumps massive welfare payments of $28 Billion dollars to bailout farmers seems to have prevented his support among them from plummeting (even though bankruptcies among farmers are up 24% YoY and continuing to grow, plus total farm debt is at all time highs).

True that. That's not much of a plan for gaining support from farmers. I'm not sure where he's gaining ground in any demography, except maybe Evangelicals. Then again, I'm not so sure.

It doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me.

It's up to Republicans to fix this, Democrats are there for accountability, despite political risks. The risk for Republicans at this point, is they chose party over country.

[Sock Prophet]

Donald Trump should be impeached and convicted by the Senate.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Sock Prophet
post was issued incorrectly

[YJ02]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Apology accepted. We can help you get over those entrenched stances you have and take a more objective, reasoned approach to almost any subject. 

 

!

Moderator Note

You came to the right place. We try to make the distinction between fact and opinion, and approach every subject with as much rigor as possible, using scientific methodology where applicable. And we don't get personal, since civility is our #1 rule. VERY different from other sites.

 

thanks

.the only thing I am entrenched in though, is that, I FEEL for about 30yrs now, our national ability to have civil discourse on political and social issues has slid to a near savage low.

In those years the nation put aside this bloodsport for 2 events: the 9/11 attacks, and then in support for the 2003 Iraq war scheme.

after a unspoken but seemingly agreed upon period of mourning for these two events was over, it was back to "game on"

the governance of our nation should not be conducted in a manner that very much resembles team sports.

Opinion concluded

[iNow]

In about 12 hours (roughly the same amount of time I spent watching hearings today... seriously, they lasted forever and a half), we should know at least 2 of the articles of impeachment being filed against Trump.

From ABC (that source rated as neutral by objective observers, but which sometimes gets maligned as being “left leaning” due to a badly broken Overton window):

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-unveil-articles-impeachment-president-trump-tuesday-sources/

Quote

Democrats are expected to unveil at least two articles of impeachment against Pres. Trump at a Tuesday morning news conference, according to multiple Democratic sources familiar with the matter.

Looks like it’ll be Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power. 

[iNow]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Looks like it’ll be Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Power. 

Announcement was just made. Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress

[J.C.MacSwell]

Any thoughts on how the vote will go? The Dems will no doubt get the impeachment passed, but how many of them will vote against?

Will any Republicans vote for it?

 

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Will any Republicans vote for it?

No.

Will Hurd was the most likely representative on the GOP side to vote against since he's shown some integrity through the years and pushed back against Trump on several issues (he's a former CIA agent from TX, the only black GOP representative, and has the largest border with Mexico of any representative in congress). This seemed especially possible since he's retiring this year and isn't up for re-election, but he's already openly said he's not going to vote in favor.

The other Republican who agreed what Trump did is worthy of removal from office is Justin Amash from Michigan, but when he announced his support for removal he got drummed out of the party entirely and is now identified as an Independent.

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The Dems will no doubt get the impeachment passed, but how many of them will vote against?

I suspect 2 or 3 Democrats who represent extremely red Trump supporting districts will vote against... or at least will vote against the Abuse of Power article and for the Obstruction of Congress article.

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

No.

Will Hurd was the most likely representative on the GOP side to vote against since he's shown some integrity through the years and pushed back against Trump on several issues (he's a former CIA agent from TX, the only black GOP representative, and has the largest border with Mexico of any representative in congress). This seemed especially possible since he's retiring this year and isn't up for re-election, but he's already openly said he's not going to vote in favor.

The other Republican who agreed what Trump did is worthy of removal from office is Justin Amash from Michigan, but when he announced his support for removal he got drummed out of the party entirely and is now identified as an Independent.

I suspect 2 or 3 Democrats who represent extremely red Trump supporting districts will vote against... or at least will vote against the Abuse of Power article and for the Obstruction of Congress article.

Thanks. So they will vote on the two items separately?

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So they will vote on the two items separately?

It depends. The House may vote on all the articles as a whole or each one separately. As long as one article passed, the president would be impeached.

Process is outlined well here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/what-is-impeachment-process.html

[iNow]

On 12/8/2019 at 1:34 PM, iNow said:

I’m curious if the facts I shared about how the Democrats have actually passed 400 bills (which the GOP led senate is ignoring while they focus solely on installing partisan federal judges) has caused anyone here to rethink their narrative that it’s impeachment which is preventing things from getting done for the public. 

As if they read our conversation here about concerns that presidential investigations were preventing things from getting done, within 1 hour of announcing impeachment articles this morning, the Democrats also announced that they’d reached a deal with the Trump admin on the USMCA trade deal (aka NAFTA v2)

https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/quick-take-your-primer-the-us-mexico-canada-agreement-usmca

[MigL]

Everybody needed a 'win', INow ( especially D Trump ).
That's the only reason it got done.

We Canadians managed to lose very little, so it can still be spun as a win.

[YJ02]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Everybody needed a 'win', INow ( especially D Trump ).
That's the only reason it got done.

We Canadians managed to lose very little, so it can still be spun as a win.

 This is the kind of thing that makes me suspicious of nearly everything that is done in DC lately.

as you said " everybody needed a 'win'..."

almost as if it was part of some deal...  Trump = "ok, you guys (dems) go ahead with impeachment, and I'll tell you what- I won't even mount a defense at the hearings. I 'll make a little noise, but you guys do your thing to deliver to your base and you give me what I need for my base. It will all work out, winning for everyone...tremendous"

 

----------------------------

I had a sickening thought (as in something that would make everything worse). Say Trump gets convicted in the Senate, then will we have a "political - Martyr Trump?"

because you just know he wont be able to just go away or stay quiet.

His supporters- turned to Pence supporters, would be called to action ("to arms, to arms!") over his conviction. 

I am just glad I live where we do..far away from major population centers.

 

 

[MigL]

No, I mean to say that D Trump needed to demonstrate he can get at least one trade deal done, and make it look like the impeachment isn't a big deal.
The Democrats needed to show they can still be part of an effective government, instead of 'just out to get' D Trump.
And our ( Canadian ) government needed a 'free trade' deal without losing too much for Quebec dairy and the auto sector, as D Trump had threatened to do.

I wonder what Mexico can claim as their win ?
( "It's a win, we did not have to pay for the wall after all"  ???? )

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

wonder what Mexico can claim as their win ?

Mexico had to give up the most in the deal, and biggest benefit to them is Trump takes his boot off their throats and it’s easier for them to succeed / for US companies to employ workers there, for them to export goods to US markets, etc.

We should, however, take any USMCA discussion to another thread, though I understand your point as it pertains to this one. Wins were wanted and needed.

Trump will tout promises made, promises kept throughout the campaign. Dems will say they can walk and chew bubble gum at same time (impeach and legislate). The timing of the announcement only reinforces this. 

Meanwhile, Trump is already leaning into it and at a campaign rally tonight in Pennsylvania yelled to a cheering crowd, “This is the lightest impeachment in the history of our country, by far.” 

Since there’ve only been 3, I suppose he means that getting impeached for lying about a blowjob was heavier? 

Edited December 11, 2019 by iNow

[iNow]

I’m watching the live public markup of the impeachment articles by the House Judiciary Committee. For those not watching, here’s the tl;dr version:

Democrats: The President by inviting foreign interference in our elections is forcing us to proceed with this unfortunate process. He’s putting personal gain over protection of our country, attacks the media, and viciously attacks anyone who disagrees with him. He’s the most corrupt president in history, and if what he did was so perfect, he should’ve had his team share the documents requested and testify when subpoenaed to prove it. 

Republicans: Democrats hate Trump and despise his voters and are breaking democracy because they’re afraid to lose the next election. Adam Schiff is a liar and Nancy Pelosi a criminal and this is all bullshit because the whistleblower didn’t testify (even though each of his claims were validated by 17 people who were actually there). Impeachment is a drug democrats have been addicted to since crying over Hillary Clinton’s loss. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m watching the live public markup of the impeachment articles by the House Judiciary Committee. For those not watching, here’s the tl;dr version:

Democrats: The President by inviting foreign interference in our elections is forcing us to proceed with this unfortunate process. He’s putting personal gain over protection of our country, attacks the media, and viciously attacks anyone who disagrees with him. He’s the most corrupt president in history, and if what he did was so perfect, he should’ve had his team share the documents requested and testify when subpoenaed to prove it. 

 

I thought you said you didn't watch CNN...

 

11 hours ago, iNow said:

Republicans: Democrats hate Trump and despise his voters and are breaking democracy because they’re afraid to lose the next election. Adam Schiff is a liar and Nancy Pelosi a criminal and this is all bullshit because the whistleblower didn’t testify (even though each of his claims were validated by 17 people who were actually there). Impeachment is a drug democrats have been addicted to since crying over Hillary Clinton’s loss. 

...or Fox News...