|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 14 2021 08:06 Nevuk wrote:
I wish they'd called witnesses not so that Trump would have gotten impeached, but so that we could get some of the MANY outstanding questions issued :
1.Was it really Pence who finally permitted calling up the national guard and not Trump?
2.Did Trump delay calling up the national guard? Many reports indicate yes, but nothing that ties him to the decision.
3. (similar to 2) Why were the national guard initially denied permission to quell the coup attempt? Who gave that order?
4.Why were the capitol police so low on manpower?
5.Why were a at least a couple of police helping the rioters (really, just taking selfies with them)?
6.How did intelligence miss this, or was intelligence found and then ignored?
All of that and anymore were things investigated for 9/11, and I would expect them to be being asked here as well, though I don't know if they have a commission set up on it already.
Honestly, I believe all those questions will be infinitely better investigated outside the context of impeachment where Congressional Republicans are able to avoid the wrath of the MAGA base by virtue of the MAGA base being about as well acquainted with the functioning of government as Trump (that is, they have an extremely myopic view of it).
Trump being held accountable was never going to happen. At least this way, others who bore responsibility can get quietly thrown under the bus external to the impeachment, rather than the GOP being forced to rally to their defence because they're shaking in their boots at the tiger whose tail they held for ~6 years.
|
On February 14 2021 08:06 Nevuk wrote:
I wish they'd called witnesses not so that Trump would have gotten impeached, but so that we could get some of the MANY outstanding questions issued :
1.Was it really Pence who finally permitted calling up the national guard and not Trump?
2.Did Trump delay calling up the national guard? Many reports indicate yes, but nothing that ties him to the decision.
3. (similar to 2) Why were the national guard initially denied permission to quell the coup attempt? Who gave that order?
4.Why were the capitol police so low on manpower?
5.Why were a at least a couple of police helping the rioters (really, just taking selfies with them)?
6.How did intelligence miss this, or was intelligence found and then ignored?
All of that and anymore were things investigated for 9/11, and I would expect them to be being asked here as well, though I don't know if they have a commission set up on it already.
Just establish an independent commission later for all that. Is clear this is an exercise in futility at these point with republicans just doodling during the testimony and collaborating with the accused. Biden and Dems have enough on there plate trying to undo all the damage from these 4 years. Republicans just playing games at this point
|
On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued?
As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because:
- Trump is gone
- Trump isn't coming back
As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent.
I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble.
That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things.
|
On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things.
If he's been acquitted he can run again in 2024, no?
|
The problem here is that people still believe that republican people in congress would care about anything but keeping as much power as possible. There was this short period after Trumps goons stormed the capitol where people expected that this would be the time when republicans finally showed some spine and fought back against Trump. People assumed that surely they would not accept a president who lost an election attempting a coup to retain power, and actually do something to punish that insurrection. Of course, that was stupid, as has become more and more obvious over the last few weeks.
US politics are just insane.
|
On February 14 2021 08:26 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things. If he's been acquitted he can run again in 2024, no? There is nothing stopping Trump from running again currently (who knows what the criminal investigations against him will do) and I would bet on him winning the R nomination if he did.
|
On February 14 2021 07:59 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 07:13 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:
McConnell gives the neatest demonstration I can imagine that Republicans literally don't care about morals. They successfully identify what is morally right and wrong, and refuse to let that affect their decision making in a historic attack on the US capitol. Anytime you find yourself talking about a large group of people, especially 40% of a population, and the only way you can understand what they are doing is to say either that "they are bad" OR "they are stupid".....you're probably wrong. Comments like these are why it's largely a waste of time to discuss politics in most public spaces. If the best you have to explain or understand the actions of conservatives is "they don't care about morals" it's painfully obvious you haven't done even a modicum of research or discussion to try and understand conservative thought or motivations + Show Spoiler +You are, in essence, having a discussion about the imaginary incentives and goals of conservatives, rather than the actual ones. Such discussion is neither productive nor interesting. ...I'm taking about Republicans in Congress. I apologise if that wasn't clear from context, but my previous posts should've clarified that as well. I'm not coming for just anyone on the internet who identifies as a let down conservative or anything. You're reading something in my comment that isn't there.
Fair. My mistake for mispresenting what you wrote without first clarifying.
That said, even in the context of congress, I remain highly skeptical of the claim that the Republicans have no moral compass (are evil), without a counterbalancing claim that this is a serious issue for Democrats as well.
I'm generally of the mind that there is enough money in and surrounding politics, and that the majority of the types that enter politics are more aggressive and hierarchy/status driven than most, that the majority of politicians have given up principles in exchange for winning (being elected, moving up).
Combine that with no strong reason I'm aware of, or coming up with, as to why I should, as a group, expect Republican representatives to be more or less principle driven than Democrat representatives... and you have my skepticism.
|
On February 14 2021 08:28 Simberto wrote:
The problem here is that people still believe that republican people in congress would care about anything but keeping as much power as possible. There was this short period after Trumps goons stormed the capitol where people expected that this would be the time when republicans finally showed some spine and fought back against Trump. People assumed that surely they would not accept a president who lost an election attempting a coup to retain power, and actually do something to punish that insurrection. Of course, that was stupid, as has become more and more obvious over the last few weeks.
US politics are just insane. Yep, I was sure the attempts at disputing the result would stop as the attack was happening. But nope, mere hours later Republicans still in large numbers voted to throw out 2 states worth of votes.
|
On February 14 2021 08:26 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things. If he's been acquitted he can run again in 2024, no?
Hence my comment about the inevitable circus that impeaching him would prevent :D
That said, I think it's completely a clown show, in that he would suck up plenty of attention but have absolutely no chance of winning the primary. He lost big, in so many ways, from Nov 3rd to Jan 21st. He's done in my mind.
|
|
|
On February 14 2021 08:33 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 08:26 iamthedave wrote:On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things. If he's been acquitted he can run again in 2024, no? Hence my comment about the inevitable circus that impeaching him would prevent :D That said, I think it's completely a clown show, in that he would suck up plenty of attention but have absolutely no chance of winning the primary. He lost big, in so many ways, from Nov 3rd to Jan 21st. He's done in my mind.
I wouldn't count on that. I was certain that he would never win a nomination, and after he won the nomination i was absolutely certain that he would never get elected. Apparently Trump is somehow convincing to large, relevant parts of the US electorate. This could dissipate in 4 years, but it could also not. The Trump cult is crazy and absurd enough that they might get him the nomination again.
|
On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things.
The consequence of this argument is that every president gets a period of zero accountability in the days before they leave office.
|
On February 14 2021 08:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 08:26 iamthedave wrote:On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things. If he's been acquitted he can run again in 2024, no? There is nothing stopping Trump from running again currently (who knows what the criminal investigations against him will do) and I would bet on him winning the R nomination if he did.
If this is what you think, I definitely understand why you'd consider the impeachment to be far more relevant. I'm curious why you would take that bet? If Trump had stepped away on October 1st or something, I think I would be right there with you.
Watching Trump disintegrate over the final two months, culminating in the capital stuff, was brutal. He lost tremendous support there, especially from the moderate Rs and all of the establishment Rs. He also completely lost his narrative of "I'm a winner" to all but the die-hard Trump guys, which are a smaller portion of conservatives than are the far left progressive democrats.
You've got a guaranteed 10% or 15% of the conservative base that would vote Trump. The rest of them, including all the establishment, are pretty sick of the Trump show.
Curious where you're seeing the Trump support come from...unless you just think all of the possible candidates for 2024 that you're aware of are so bad they would be forced to pick Trump?
|
On February 14 2021 08:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things. The consequence of this argument is that every president gets a period of zero accountability in the days before they leave office.
I *think* you're mistaking my lack of interest in the impeachment process this second time around when Trump is no longer a sitting president as being an argument against impeaching Trump.
That's definitely NOT an argument I'm making.
My (not heavily fleshed out by any means) thoughts are best contained in the last two paragraphs of my post you responded to.
|
Folks are betting on Trump running again and winning the nomination because they have to assume that. Republicans have not given anyone reason to believe they will ever do the right thing.
And it's not that they don't have a moral compass. Even McConnell stated in very clear terms what was morally right and wrong in this situation. It's that they know what's moral, they just don't care, and they won't do it.
|
The Republican Party doesn’t mean anything anymore. They’re terrified of the QAnon/regressive wave that’s sweeping across the party.
Who is going to beat Trump if he wants to become the 2024 nom? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? No, they’re going to sit around and let themselves get cucked by Trump while screaming how libs are the real cucks. That’s his appeal, that’s the Republican base in the 21 century.
McConnell’s “Trump is guilty of everything...so I’m voting to acquit because I stalled things long enough to get him off on a technicality” is the best example of this. He doesn’t give a shit about rule of law, he’s just so much of a coward that he wants the states/feds/natural causes to kill Trump.
|
On February 14 2021 08:45 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 08:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things. The consequence of this argument is that every president gets a period of zero accountability in the days before they leave office. I *think* you're mistaking my lack of interest in the impeachment process this second time around when Trump is no longer a sitting president as being an argument against impeaching Trump. That's definitely NOT an argument I'm making. My (not heavily fleshed out by any means) thoughts are best contained in the last two paragraphs of my post you responded to.
Fair enough, I misinterpreted what you were saying.
|
On February 14 2021 08:46 NewSunshine wrote:
Folks are betting on Trump running again and winning the nomination because they have to assume that. Republicans have not given anyone reason to believe they will ever do the right thing.
And it's not that they don't have a moral compass. Even McConnell stated in very clear terms what was morally right and wrong in this situation. It's that they know what's moral, they just don't care, and they won't do it.
They are just bad people. No two ways about it.
|
On February 14 2021 08:42 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 08:30 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2021 08:26 iamthedave wrote:On February 14 2021 08:22 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. So you think he should have shouldn't have been impeached based on what he did and what his defense argued? As per above, I haven't followed it closely. I don't really care either way because: - Trump is gone - Trump isn't coming back As such, the entire thing is politcal theatre with limited purpose. I suppose it reduces slightly from the primary circus that will inevitably occur if Trump tries to run again in 2024. The primary impact is that it could continue to establish precedent. I'd have to think long and hard about whether I think impeaching Trump over this would set a quality precedent. My knee-jerk inclination is that it probably wouldn't, unless explicitly framed as the reason for impeachment being specifically because he didn't respond strongly and assertively the moment it became obvious there was trouble. That said, to the general question of "Does Trump deserver to be impeached" my answer would be yes. Some of the things he did with COVID I found abhorrent, along with a few other other things. If he's been acquitted he can run again in 2024, no? There is nothing stopping Trump from running again currently (who knows what the criminal investigations against him will do) and I would bet on him winning the R nomination if he did. If this is what you think, I definitely understand why you'd consider the impeachment to be far more relevant. I'm curious why you would take that bet? If Trump had stepped away on October 1st or something, I think I would be right there with you. Watching Trump disintegrate over the final two months, culminating in the capital stuff, was brutal. He lost tremendous support there, especially from the moderate Rs and all of the establishment Rs. He also completely lost his narrative of "I'm a winner" to all but the die-hard Trump guys, which are a smaller portion of conservatives than are the far left progressive democrats. You've got a guaranteed 10% or 15% of the conservative base that would vote Trump. The rest of them, including all the establishment, are pretty sick of the Trump show. Curious where you're seeing the Trump support come from...unless you just think all of the possible candidates for 2024 that you're aware of are so bad they would be forced to pick Trump? He won the 2016 primary without the establishment and I would guess without the moderates(unless you think a moderate Republican grabs women by the pussy and thinks all Mexicans are rapists). 70% of Republicans thought voting to convict Trump was betraying the party. 1/3 said they would leave the GOP for a Trump 3e party run. www.usnews.com
Trump was and still is popular among the crazies parts of the Republican base and I think recent history has shown that that crazy part gets out and votes and is big enough to push through their preferred candidates.
Plus I think the Trumpists hate for the GOP abandoning Trump's fight after the election is bigger then the image that Trump is now somehow a loser.
They see themselves as the downtrodden and oppressed trying to get what they deserve. More then ever Trump's fight is their fight.
|
Northern Ireland26076 Posts
On February 14 2021 07:13 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:
McConnell gives the neatest demonstration I can imagine that Republicans literally don't care about morals. They successfully identify what is morally right and wrong, and refuse to let that affect their decision making in a historic attack on the US capitol. Anytime you find yourself talking about a large group of people, especially 40% of a population, and the only way you can understand what they are doing is to say either that "they are bad" OR "they are stupid".....you're probably wrong. Comments like these are why it's largely a waste of time to discuss politics in most public spaces. If the best you have to explain or understand the actions of conservatives is "they don't care about morals" it's painfully obvious you haven't done even a modicum of research or discussion to try and understand conservative thought or motivations + Show Spoiler +You are, in essence, having a discussion about the imaginary incentives and goals of conservatives, rather than the actual ones. Such discussion is neither productive nor interesting.
If the glove fits... If there is a huge disconnect between someone’s purported moral compass and what they do, then either they are too stupid and impulsive to follow any kind of consistent belief system, or they don’t particularly practice what they preach.
I would assume that NewSunshine is in the same boat as me, (although it’s very much an assumption) that he has at some point looked into conservative beliefs, associated with conservatives and its precisely the jarring disconnect that happens with a ‘wait aren’t you guys meant to be against this kind of thing?’ being repeated enough that leads to the aforementioned conclusions.
I will add the rather giant caveat that I don’t consider vast swathes of the MAGA crowd to be particularly conservative at all. There’s plenty in conservative ideas that I think have great value, some I very much don’t, and plenty of people I like in my life who could be termed as conservatives.
The MAGA crowd though? They’re spoilt children whose only real ideology is wanting the world to warp around whatever they want at any particular moment in time, even if it’s utterly incoherent when joined together. They love the free market except when it does things they don’t like,capitalism is great except when it’s China doing it, the Constitution is both akin to a divine document that is self-evidently true except when they’re wiping their arse with it and marching on the Capitol, or at least supporting those that incited and did this.
Even then, evil? Probably the vast majority are not. It’s kind of what you get when you inculcate a culture where all your successes are singularly yours, the failures of others are their own and your failures are due to some kind of insidious external force.
Sure there’s overlap and exceptions but that’s why I said the idea of the MAGA crowd being something I see as distinct from traditional conservative values. It’s much more akin to straight up right-leaning populism thru to fascism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
