And yeah I absolutely think focusing only on impeachment is a mistake. Let candidates talk about policy and let the House go after the bastard, sincr they cant move anything.
+8
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Also a party line vote on Trump not being impeached in the senate has nothing to do with exoneration. I would not say Clinton was exonerated. He did that shit and he's lucky democrats were in a different place then and I hope they are not in that place now. Gauging from this thread it remains questionable.
Except it does. That's the legal finding at the end of the trial. Sure the SCOTUS presides over it, but the senate acts as jury, the party line vote would in fact be exonerating.
You also can't guarentee a party line vote in either house necessarily. We might get Democrats voting against impeachment in both the House and the Senate.
I mean, Pelosi has so far been less then bullish on this whole impeachment thing and given it's her job to count votes and she's very good at that part of it, one possible reason for that is that she's done the count and she either doesn't have enough votes right now or doesn't have everyone on board and thinks a bipartisan vote against impeachment, even a losing one, is a bad look.
Like, one of the big questions here is how you think "Trump Found Innocent", or even "Trump Found Innocent in Bipartisan Vote", plays in the headlines. How does that effect the race and Democrats ability to message on corruption.
So we should assume in any undertaking that the Republicans will vote as a unified block, but the Democrats won't?
On these matters? Absolutely. That's how votes have gone for a long time now. You should always consider that when it comes to Republicans defecting vs Democrats defecting, Democratic politicians on the margin are more likely to break first. That's the nature of the structural differences in where the parties are getting their congressional members from.
Vote Democrat! Maybe they will do the right thing!
I am trying to find the sticking point here, or the disconnect, and I think maybe it’s related to whether or not you think Democrats have a duty to change hearts and minds
Some people seem to be pointing at polls and saying, “Because these polls don’t show overwhelming support for impeachment*, we should not impeach because it is dangerous and Democrats could get replaced in the next election cycle by Republicans that will make things worse”
*polls include both Republicans and Democrats
While other people are saying that 1) polls change over time based on the outcomes of things (ex. the ACA, basically every major piece of social legislation that people were convinced they would hate until they got it and then it turned into a third rail) and 2) if Democrats don’t see support for the constitutional remedy for a criminal president, it is because they have failed to successfully communicate the extent of the problem to their voters and they should probably, like, get on that
I’m not unsympathetic to the fear of moderate Dems being replaced by conservative Republicans, I just think that it’s not a foregone conclusion that that is the outcome here and that Democrats actually have the power to frame the narrative in a way that keeps them sympathetic to voters, but are being cowards instead of leaders
In order to serve any moral purpose that the Democrats value, they need to win in 2020.
The moral high ground on its own doesn't help get kids out of cages, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help fight climate change.
"It's the right thing to do," while necessary, is not sufficient for me to get behind this.
If you knew for a fact that bringing articles of impeachment were to secure a Republican victory in 2020, would you support it anyway, because it's our moral duty? If not, isn't that exactly the same compromise that I'm willing to make?
Yes. To do otherwise is to rob your good future acts of their moral underpinning, leaving them adrift and unsupportable except as political expediency.
I both admire your moral consistency, and pray you don't get elected as a Democrat.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Is it morally correct? Yes.
Is it Congress's Constitutional duty to check the President when he commits crimes? Yes.
Is it a good idea politically? Maybe
Will it result in the President's removal? Almost certainly not.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
I am trying to find the sticking point here, or the disconnect, and I think maybe it’s related to whether or not you think Democrats have a duty to change hearts and minds
Some people seem to be pointing at polls and saying, “Because these polls don’t show overwhelming support for impeachment*, we should not impeach because it is dangerous and Democrats could get replaced in the next election cycle by Republicans that will make things worse”
*polls include both Republicans and Democrats
While other people are saying that 1) polls change over time based on the outcomes of things (ex. the ACA, basically every major piece of social legislation that people were convinced they would hate until they got it and then it turned into a third rail) and 2) if Democrats don’t see support for the constitutional remedy for a criminal president, it is because they have failed to successfully communicate the extent of the problem to their voters and they should probably, like, get on that
I’m not unsympathetic to the fear of moderate Dems being replaced by conservative Republicans, I just think that it’s not a foregone conclusion that that is the outcome here and that Democrats actually have the power to frame the narrative in a way that keeps them sympathetic to voters, but are being cowards instead of leaders
In order to serve any moral purpose that the Democrats value, they need to win in 2020.
The moral high ground on its own doesn't help get kids out of cages, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help fight climate change.
"It's the right thing to do," while necessary, is not sufficient for me to get behind this.
If you knew for a fact that bringing articles of impeachment were to secure a Republican victory in 2020, would you support it anyway, because it's our moral duty? If not, isn't that exactly the same compromise that I'm willing to make?
That’s a weird thing to ask. It’s like asking if you knew that not killing a particular baby would bring about the deaths of 100,000, would you kill the baby?
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Ive said it before but it truly is bewildering that some people treat the GOP sticking doggedly to Trump no matter the crime as a failure state for the Dems.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
I am trying to find the sticking point here, or the disconnect, and I think maybe it’s related to whether or not you think Democrats have a duty to change hearts and minds
Some people seem to be pointing at polls and saying, “Because these polls don’t show overwhelming support for impeachment*, we should not impeach because it is dangerous and Democrats could get replaced in the next election cycle by Republicans that will make things worse”
*polls include both Republicans and Democrats
While other people are saying that 1) polls change over time based on the outcomes of things (ex. the ACA, basically every major piece of social legislation that people were convinced they would hate until they got it and then it turned into a third rail) and 2) if Democrats don’t see support for the constitutional remedy for a criminal president, it is because they have failed to successfully communicate the extent of the problem to their voters and they should probably, like, get on that
I’m not unsympathetic to the fear of moderate Dems being replaced by conservative Republicans, I just think that it’s not a foregone conclusion that that is the outcome here and that Democrats actually have the power to frame the narrative in a way that keeps them sympathetic to voters, but are being cowards instead of leaders
In order to serve any moral purpose that the Democrats value, they need to win in 2020.
The moral high ground on its own doesn't help get kids out of cages, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help fight climate change.
"It's the right thing to do," while necessary, is not sufficient for me to get behind this.
If you knew for a fact that bringing articles of impeachment were to secure a Republican victory in 2020, would you support it anyway, because it's our moral duty? If not, isn't that exactly the same compromise that I'm willing to make?
Yes. To do otherwise is to rob your good future acts of their moral underpinning, leaving them adrift and unsupportable except as political expediency.
I don't agree but i could be convinced of this, because it's really important to me that they impeach
I am trying to find the sticking point here, or the disconnect, and I think maybe it’s related to whether or not you think Democrats have a duty to change hearts and minds
Some people seem to be pointing at polls and saying, “Because these polls don’t show overwhelming support for impeachment*, we should not impeach because it is dangerous and Democrats could get replaced in the next election cycle by Republicans that will make things worse”
*polls include both Republicans and Democrats
While other people are saying that 1) polls change over time based on the outcomes of things (ex. the ACA, basically every major piece of social legislation that people were convinced they would hate until they got it and then it turned into a third rail) and 2) if Democrats don’t see support for the constitutional remedy for a criminal president, it is because they have failed to successfully communicate the extent of the problem to their voters and they should probably, like, get on that
I’m not unsympathetic to the fear of moderate Dems being replaced by conservative Republicans, I just think that it’s not a foregone conclusion that that is the outcome here and that Democrats actually have the power to frame the narrative in a way that keeps them sympathetic to voters, but are being cowards instead of leaders
In order to serve any moral purpose that the Democrats value, they need to win in 2020.
The moral high ground on its own doesn't help get kids out of cages, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help fight climate change.
"It's the right thing to do," while necessary, is not sufficient for me to get behind this.
If you knew for a fact that bringing articles of impeachment were to secure a Republican victory in 2020, would you support it anyway, because it's our moral duty? If not, isn't that exactly the same compromise that I'm willing to make?
Yes. To do otherwise is to rob your good future acts of their moral underpinning, leaving them adrift and unsupportable except as political expediency.
I both admire your moral consistency, and pray you don't get elected as a Democrat.
What about if you were absolutely sure my candidacy gave Democrats the Senate
I am trying to find the sticking point here, or the disconnect, and I think maybe it’s related to whether or not you think Democrats have a duty to change hearts and minds
Some people seem to be pointing at polls and saying, “Because these polls don’t show overwhelming support for impeachment*, we should not impeach because it is dangerous and Democrats could get replaced in the next election cycle by Republicans that will make things worse”
*polls include both Republicans and Democrats
While other people are saying that 1) polls change over time based on the outcomes of things (ex. the ACA, basically every major piece of social legislation that people were convinced they would hate until they got it and then it turned into a third rail) and 2) if Democrats don’t see support for the constitutional remedy for a criminal president, it is because they have failed to successfully communicate the extent of the problem to their voters and they should probably, like, get on that
I’m not unsympathetic to the fear of moderate Dems being replaced by conservative Republicans, I just think that it’s not a foregone conclusion that that is the outcome here and that Democrats actually have the power to frame the narrative in a way that keeps them sympathetic to voters, but are being cowards instead of leaders
In order to serve any moral purpose that the Democrats value, they need to win in 2020.
The moral high ground on its own doesn't help get kids out of cages, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help fight climate change.
"It's the right thing to do," while necessary, is not sufficient for me to get behind this.
If you knew for a fact that bringing articles of impeachment were to secure a Republican victory in 2020, would you support it anyway, because it's our moral duty? If not, isn't that exactly the same compromise that I'm willing to make?
That’s a weird thing to ask. It’s like asking if you knew that not killing a particular baby would bring about the deaths of 100,000, would you kill the baby?
It’s not a useful way of looking at the problem.
All I'm trying to do is get people to acknowledge that it may have a political cost, and asking them how much of a price they are willing to pay to do what they think is (and alsp really is) the right thing.
I am trying to find the sticking point here, or the disconnect, and I think maybe it’s related to whether or not you think Democrats have a duty to change hearts and minds
Some people seem to be pointing at polls and saying, “Because these polls don’t show overwhelming support for impeachment*, we should not impeach because it is dangerous and Democrats could get replaced in the next election cycle by Republicans that will make things worse”
*polls include both Republicans and Democrats
While other people are saying that 1) polls change over time based on the outcomes of things (ex. the ACA, basically every major piece of social legislation that people were convinced they would hate until they got it and then it turned into a third rail) and 2) if Democrats don’t see support for the constitutional remedy for a criminal president, it is because they have failed to successfully communicate the extent of the problem to their voters and they should probably, like, get on that
I’m not unsympathetic to the fear of moderate Dems being replaced by conservative Republicans, I just think that it’s not a foregone conclusion that that is the outcome here and that Democrats actually have the power to frame the narrative in a way that keeps them sympathetic to voters, but are being cowards instead of leaders
In order to serve any moral purpose that the Democrats value, they need to win in 2020.
The moral high ground on its own doesn't help get kids out of cages, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help fight climate change.
"It's the right thing to do," while necessary, is not sufficient for me to get behind this.
If you knew for a fact that bringing articles of impeachment were to secure a Republican victory in 2020, would you support it anyway, because it's our moral duty? If not, isn't that exactly the same compromise that I'm willing to make?
Yes. To do otherwise is to rob your good future acts of their moral underpinning, leaving them adrift and unsupportable except as political expediency.
I both admire your moral consistency, and pray you don't get elected as a Democrat.
What about if you were absolutely sure my candidacy gave Democrats the Senate
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
The dog and pony shows get more weight with impeachment as a side effect. More coverage due to the weight. Subpoenas might even mean something!
Ive said it before but it truly is bewildering that some people treat the GOP sticking doggedly to Trump no matter the crime as a failure state for the Dems.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
Multiple people have claimed that Trump getting "exonerated" makes it too dangerous, or other similar arguments, which discounts the incredible value of forcing the GOP to go to bat for that clown's specific crimes during an election season.
Its just political defeatism. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
+7
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Congressional "oversight" is meaningless without enforcement. It's not a check on the President if they hold a million hearings that change no policy while he keeps on Presidenting for another 18 months.
Congress's ultimate power IS impeachment and if you believe his crimes are high enough to meet the Constitutional bar but Congress fails to act, they haven't handled their duty.
Also a party line vote on Trump not being impeached in the senate has nothing to do with exoneration. I would not say Clinton was exonerated. He did that shit and he's lucky democrats were in a different place then and I hope they are not in that place now. Gauging from this thread it remains questionable.
Except it does. That's the legal finding at the end of the trial. Sure the SCOTUS presides over it, but the senate acts as jury, the party line vote would in fact be exonerating.
You also can't guarentee a party line vote in either house necessarily. We might get Democrats voting against impeachment in both the House and the Senate.
I mean, Pelosi has so far been less then bullish on this whole impeachment thing and given it's her job to count votes and she's very good at that part of it, one possible reason for that is that she's done the count and she either doesn't have enough votes right now or doesn't have everyone on board and thinks a bipartisan vote against impeachment, even a losing one, is a bad look.
Like, one of the big questions here is how you think "Trump Found Innocent", or even "Trump Found Innocent in Bipartisan Vote", plays in the headlines. How does that effect the race and Democrats ability to message on corruption.
So we should assume in any undertaking that the Republicans will vote as a unified block, but the Democrats won't?
On these matters? Absolutely. That's how votes have gone for a long time now. You should always consider that when it comes to Republicans defecting vs Democrats defecting, Democratic politicians on the margin are more likely to break first. That's the nature of the structural differences in where the parties are getting their congressional members from.
Vote Democrat! Maybe they will do the right thing!
The way the US system is set up gives the Republicans an inherent structural advantage such that the Democrats need to peel off more moderate seats to get majority to get things done. This means Democratic majorities depend on blue-dog-style democrats. Like, famously, Manchin. And that means those votes can be less reliable in some cases, especially given how weak whipping is in the american system. This is simply a fact. No amount of you sarcastically complaining about it will change that.
And what this means for the thread topic is that the possibility of Democrats voting against impeachment, in either house, is non-zero and probably higher then it is for Republicans going the other way.
man it's going to be great watching our presidential candidates ramp up the impeachment talk and the house twiddle their thumbs and keep it focused on disapproving letters at stooges trump doesn't care about anyway
that'll really sell that our party means what it says
I am trying to find the sticking point here, or the disconnect, and I think maybe it’s related to whether or not you think Democrats have a duty to change hearts and minds
Some people seem to be pointing at polls and saying, “Because these polls don’t show overwhelming support for impeachment*, we should not impeach because it is dangerous and Democrats could get replaced in the next election cycle by Republicans that will make things worse”
*polls include both Republicans and Democrats
While other people are saying that 1) polls change over time based on the outcomes of things (ex. the ACA, basically every major piece of social legislation that people were convinced they would hate until they got it and then it turned into a third rail) and 2) if Democrats don’t see support for the constitutional remedy for a criminal president, it is because they have failed to successfully communicate the extent of the problem to their voters and they should probably, like, get on that
I’m not unsympathetic to the fear of moderate Dems being replaced by conservative Republicans, I just think that it’s not a foregone conclusion that that is the outcome here and that Democrats actually have the power to frame the narrative in a way that keeps them sympathetic to voters, but are being cowards instead of leaders
In order to serve any moral purpose that the Democrats value, they need to win in 2020.
The moral high ground on its own doesn't help get kids out of cages, it doesn't help LGBT people, it doesn't help fight climate change.
"It's the right thing to do," while necessary, is not sufficient for me to get behind this.
If you knew for a fact that bringing articles of impeachment were to secure a Republican victory in 2020, would you support it anyway, because it's our moral duty? If not, isn't that exactly the same compromise that I'm willing to make?
That’s a weird thing to ask. It’s like asking if you knew that not killing a particular baby would bring about the deaths of 100,000, would you kill the baby?
It’s not a useful way of looking at the problem.
All I'm trying to do is get people to acknowledge that it may have a political cost, and asking them how much of a price they are willing to pay to do what they think is (and alsp really is) the right thing.
I have acknowledged that, is the thing. My stance is we don’t know, so we should do what is right.
My position is also informed by the failure of our political class to hold their own accountable in the past. Nixon, Reagan and Iran-Contra and all the cronies involved, Bush II and the Iraq war, American torture programs, etc. We have a roadmap for what happens to politics in this country when bad actors know they are above consequences because the people who could hold them accountable are afraid of voter backlash for doing the right thing. It’s part of the reason we even have a President Trump right now. At some point the cycle needs to get broken and criminals in higher office need to actually fear the consequences of their actions.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
Absolutism.
Only one solution is acceptable?
Have fun on the sidelines then.
One solution is better. This is a weird thing to say.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
Don't need to impeach to do oversight. The second is happening literally right now without the first.
Impeachment is a political process. It's not a moral act nor is it morally mandated.
"I only have a moral duty to act if I will know Ill succeed" is a hell of a moral framework.
There is no moral obligation to engage in a specific political action as laid out by the constitution.
Trying to use the constitution as a moral framework is ridiculous. We're talking about a document that allowed slavery ffs. Literally the same people that designed the impeachment process also supported or at least allowed that black people were subhuman property.
If you think there is a moral obligation to stop Trump or to remove him from office or whatnot, then you should be looking at how you would accomplish that. Which does not necessarily mean impeachment.
Here's my thoughts on the pros of impeachment (other than being the moral thing to do, since that is utterly meaningless apparently)
- The states where we lost in 2016 are full of populist anger, to which I say Impeachment will provide fuel. I don't see this hurting any of the dem nominees that are likely to win the primary
- It will utterly occupy every facet of Trump's psyche, throwing off his campaigning game. He'll have a hard time focusing his minions towards his political opponents while he's focused on throwing hate at Pelosi (who can take it, and in fact I believe derives power from it)
- It will make Trump miserable
- It will almost certainly uncover more crimes, by people other than trump, people who can be arrested
- It will give history a more accurate look at the crimes of the American government from 2016-2020. I do not believe this is insignifcant.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
Don't need to impeach to do oversight. The second is happening literally right now without the first.
Impeachment is a political process. It's not a moral act nor is it morally mandated.
"I only have a moral duty to act if I will know Ill succeed" is a hell of a moral framework.
There is no moral obligation to engage in a specific political action as laid out by the constitution.
Trying to use the constitution as a moral framework is ridiculous. We're talking about a document that allowed slavery ffs. Literally the same people that designed the impeachment process also supported or at least allowed that black people were subhuman property.
If you think there is a moral obligation to stop Trump or to remove him from office or whatnot, then you should be looking at how you would accomplish that. Which does not necessarily mean impeachment.
You believe in a moral duty to fullfill the oath of office same as me.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
Absolutism.
Only one solution is acceptable?
Have fun on the sidelines then.
One solution is better. This is a weird thing to say.
I mean, the opposing opinion seems to be that the only right thing to do is to not impeach, so I find the “absolutism” accusation fairly puzzling
Ive said it before but it truly is bewildering that some people treat the GOP sticking doggedly to Trump no matter the crime as a failure state for the Dems.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
Multiple people have claimed that Trump getting "exonerated" makes it too dangerous, or other similar arguments, which discounts the incredible value of forcing the GOP to go to bat for that clown's specific crimes during an election season.
Its just political defeatism. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
It's not defeatism, it's admitting that there are other potential outcomes to this action that should be taken into account.
Ive said it before but it truly is bewildering that some people treat the GOP sticking doggedly to Trump no matter the crime as a failure state for the Dems.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
Multiple people have claimed that Trump getting "exonerated" makes it too dangerous, or other similar arguments, which discounts the incredible value of forcing the GOP to go to bat for that clown's specific crimes during an election season.
Its just political defeatism. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
It's not defeatism, it's admitting that there are other potential outcomes to this action that should be taken into account.
We're fully aware of them, theyre just not serious.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Congressional "oversight" is meaningless without enforcement. It's not a check on the President if they hold a million hearings that change no policy while he keeps on Presidenting for another 18 months.
Congress's ultimate power IS impeachment and if you believe his crimes are high enough to meet the Constitutional bar but Congress fails to act, they haven't handled their duty.
But impeachment will fail. Because Congress' enforcement powers via impeachment are a sick joke. It cannot work because of the design.
So the only kind of enforcement you can do via oversight is communicating the President's many many many crimes to the public. Which you don't need to impeach to do.
Ive said it before but it truly is bewildering that some people treat the GOP sticking doggedly to Trump no matter the crime as a failure state for the Dems.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
Multiple people have claimed that Trump getting "exonerated" makes it too dangerous, or other similar arguments, which discounts the incredible value of forcing the GOP to go to bat for that clown's specific crimes during an election season.
Its just political defeatism. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
It's not defeatism, it's admitting that there are other potential outcomes to this action that should be taken into account.
We're fully aware of them, theyre just not serious.
Democrats would do better if they were the party of ending corruption.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+10
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
Absolutism.
Only one solution is acceptable?
Have fun on the sidelines then.
One solution is better. This is a weird thing to say.
I mean, the opposing opinion seems to be that the only right thing to do is to not impeach, so I find the “absolutism” accusation fairly puzzling
Flat out straw man.
There are plenty of things to do before deciding to impeach. Many (most?) folks here are advocating for having Mueller testify before making this decision at a minimum. But no, that makes the Dems spineless wimps who don’t listen to their (not really their) “base”.
Ive said it before but it truly is bewildering that some people treat the GOP sticking doggedly to Trump no matter the crime as a failure state for the Dems.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
Multiple people have claimed that Trump getting "exonerated" makes it too dangerous, or other similar arguments, which discounts the incredible value of forcing the GOP to go to bat for that clown's specific crimes during an election season.
Its just political defeatism. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
It's not defeatism, it's admitting that there are other potential outcomes to this action that should be taken into account.
We're fully aware of them, theyre just not serious.
Sure they are. Just because you think they are wrong doesn't make them not serious. There are very real potential downsides here and the pros and cons of the potential actions in question can be weighted and debated.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
Don't need to impeach to do oversight. The second is happening literally right now without the first.
Impeachment is a political process. It's not a moral act nor is it morally mandated.
"I only have a moral duty to act if I will know Ill succeed" is a hell of a moral framework.
There is no moral obligation to engage in a specific political action as laid out by the constitution.
Trying to use the constitution as a moral framework is ridiculous. We're talking about a document that allowed slavery ffs. Literally the same people that designed the impeachment process also supported or at least allowed that black people were subhuman property.
If you think there is a moral obligation to stop Trump or to remove him from office or whatnot, then you should be looking at how you would accomplish that. Which does not necessarily mean impeachment.
You believe in a moral duty to fullfill the oath of office same as me.
I do? Since when?
And I don't see how the oath of office mandates impeachment anyway.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
Don't need to impeach to do oversight. The second is happening literally right now without the first.
Impeachment is a political process. It's not a moral act nor is it morally mandated.
"I only have a moral duty to act if I will know Ill succeed" is a hell of a moral framework.
There is no moral obligation to engage in a specific political action as laid out by the constitution.
Trying to use the constitution as a moral framework is ridiculous. We're talking about a document that allowed slavery ffs. Literally the same people that designed the impeachment process also supported or at least allowed that black people were subhuman property.
If you think there is a moral obligation to stop Trump or to remove him from office or whatnot, then you should be looking at how you would accomplish that. Which does not necessarily mean impeachment.
You believe in a moral duty to fullfill the oath of office same as me.
I do? Since when?
And I don't see how the oath of office mandates impeachment anyway.
If you dont believe in a moral duty to the oath of office its little wonder you see no need for impeachment, as it makes Trump's crimes substantially less.
Ive said it before but it truly is bewildering that some people treat the GOP sticking doggedly to Trump no matter the crime as a failure state for the Dems.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
Multiple people have claimed that Trump getting "exonerated" makes it too dangerous, or other similar arguments, which discounts the incredible value of forcing the GOP to go to bat for that clown's specific crimes during an election season.
Its just political defeatism. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
It's not defeatism, it's admitting that there are other potential outcomes to this action that should be taken into account.
We're fully aware of them, theyre just not serious.
Sure they are. Just because you think they are wrong doesn't make them not serious. There are very real potential downsides here and the pros and cons of the potential actions in question can be weighted and debated.
I dont see that there's a discussion to be had when one side makes a positive argument for an action and the other side just says "yes but also there are cons" and barely engsges past that point so Im out.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
Absolutism.
Only one solution is acceptable?
Have fun on the sidelines then.
One solution is better. This is a weird thing to say.
I mean, the opposing opinion seems to be that the only right thing to do is to not impeach, so I find the “absolutism” accusation fairly puzzling
Flat out straw man.
There are plenty of things to do before deciding to impeach. Many (most?) folks here are advocating for having Mueller testify before making this decision at a minimum. But no, that makes the Dems spineless wimps who don’t listen to their (not really their) “base”.
Disagreeing over whether or not we should wait to impeach until we have exhausted every other avenue of reproach is fine. I don’t really think that’s what people here are arguing about. I myself have said I’m fine with waiting until Mueller testifies for political reasons, but Trump has already met the bar for impeachment as far as I’m concerned and Mueller’s testimony isn’t going to change that one way or the other.
You’re accusing me of strawmanning you but really what happened is you strawmanned the belief that impeachment is the best course of action as “absolutism” and I pointed out that if we’re arguing disingenuously the same could be said of the viewpoint that we should not.
I doubt Mueller says anything more explosive than what his redacted report says. What is the mechanism that Democrats have to get a fully unredacted report?
psn: PhasenWeeple
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
Absolutism.
Only one solution is acceptable?
Have fun on the sidelines then.
One solution is better. This is a weird thing to say.
I mean, the opposing opinion seems to be that the only right thing to do is to not impeach, so I find the “absolutism” accusation fairly puzzling
Flat out straw man.
There are plenty of things to do before deciding to impeach. Many (most?) folks here are advocating for having Mueller testify before making this decision at a minimum. But no, that makes the Dems spineless wimps who don’t listen to their (not really their) “base”.
Disagreeing over whether or not we should wait to impeach until we have exhausted every other avenue of reproach is fine. I don’t really think that’s what people here are arguing about. I myself have said I’m fine with waiting until Mueller testifies for political reasons, but Trump has already met the bar for impeachment as far as I’m concerned and Mueller’s testimony isn’t going to change that one way or the other.
You’re accusing me of strawmanning you but really what happened is you strawmanned the belief that impeachment is the best course of action as “absolutism” and I pointed out that if we’re arguing disingenuously the same could be said of the viewpoint that we should not.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
I hope there is something Democrats can other than hope Barr actually cares about justice and will give them the report. I just see a clock running down and nothing happening.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
Absolutism.
Only one solution is acceptable?
Have fun on the sidelines then.
One solution is better. This is a weird thing to say.
I mean, the opposing opinion seems to be that the only right thing to do is to not impeach, so I find the “absolutism” accusation fairly puzzling
Flat out straw man.
There are plenty of things to do before deciding to impeach. Many (most?) folks here are advocating for having Mueller testify before making this decision at a minimum. But no, that makes the Dems spineless wimps who don’t listen to their (not really their) “base”.
Disagreeing over whether or not we should wait to impeach until we have exhausted every other avenue of reproach is fine. I don’t really think that’s what people here are arguing about. I myself have said I’m fine with waiting until Mueller testifies for political reasons, but Trump has already met the bar for impeachment as far as I’m concerned and Mueller’s testimony isn’t going to change that one way or the other.
You’re accusing me of strawmanning you but really what happened is you strawmanned the belief that impeachment is the best course of action as “absolutism” and I pointed out that if we’re arguing disingenuously the same could be said of the viewpoint that we should not.
The Dems are focused on 2020 to the point of not carrying out their moral obligations. And if they are focused on the 2020 elections to the exclusion of their moral obligations, why shouldn't they do as the Republicans have and go all in on the immoral ways to win the election?
Failing to bring about articles of impeachment that are destined to fail is not a failure of moral obligations on the order of conspiring with a foreign government to steal an election.
Yeah good point
We should stop advocating for racial and gender equality while we're at it since we're not going to get those things this election cycle and it's unclear if being opposed to racists will win us the election
We should do some opinion polls on if it's okay to be a party that allows transfolk in it while we're at it, since we're such steely eyed, results driven pragmatists these days
Trying to put "show trial of Trump" and "racial equality" on the same level is ridiculous. And it's basically the core of the problem with all these arguments. Whether to impeach or not is not a moral question. There is no moral mandate to impeach.
You may not believe there is a moral mandate to execute the duties of your office, but many of us do.
Impeachment is not a duty of the office, it's merely an option. I'm not seeing why an oath of office counts as a moral system either.
Theres a moral mandate to take constitutionally proscribed actions against a corrupt president, yes.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Inpeachment isnt a duty. Oversight and checking the President is and impeachment is how its done here.
They have a moral responsibility to uphold their duty.
Putting moral responsibility on impeachment alone. No other options.
This is absolutism.
You could say the same about any strongly-held personal belief. “Politicians have a moral responsibility to support trans rights” = absolutism, according to this.
Posts
And impeachment, as stated multiple times throughout the thread, is only one mechanism by which they can “uphold their duty” in oversight and “checking the president”.
I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with the absolutism that is being peddled here.
Vote Democrat! Maybe they will do the right thing!
I both admire your moral consistency, and pray you don't get elected as a Democrat.
Nah, it's 100% coherent. Because impeachment will not do anything to stop Trump*. There is no moral duty to have a dog-and-pony show.
It can be true that the president is both corrupt and that the only solution to that is to beat him in 2020.
*Except, again, in that it might cause him to lose in 2020. Or maybe not.
Don't need to impeach to do oversight. The second is happening literally right now without the first.
Impeachment is a political process. It's not a moral act nor is it morally mandated.
Is it Congress's Constitutional duty to check the President when he commits crimes? Yes.
Is it a good idea politically? Maybe
Will it result in the President's removal? Almost certainly not.
Its the strongest one. Which is warranted. Nothing precludes continuing their committee dog and pony shows.
That’s a weird thing to ask. It’s like asking if you knew that not killing a particular baby would bring about the deaths of 100,000, would you kill the baby?
It’s not a useful way of looking at the problem.
"I only have a moral duty to act if I will know Ill succeed" is a hell of a moral framework.
What do you mean by this?
It's not the Democrats fault that the GOP will stick doggedly with Trump. But it is a fact that you need to accept and work around.
I don't agree but i could be convinced of this, because it's really important to me that they impeach
What about if you were absolutely sure my candidacy gave Democrats the Senate
All I'm trying to do is get people to acknowledge that it may have a political cost, and asking them how much of a price they are willing to pay to do what they think is (and alsp really is) the right thing.
Then I'd be for it
The dog and pony shows get more weight with impeachment as a side effect. More coverage due to the weight. Subpoenas might even mean something!
Multiple people have claimed that Trump getting "exonerated" makes it too dangerous, or other similar arguments, which discounts the incredible value of forcing the GOP to go to bat for that clown's specific crimes during an election season.
Its just political defeatism. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
Absolutism.
Only one solution is acceptable?
Have fun on the sidelines then.
Congressional "oversight" is meaningless without enforcement. It's not a check on the President if they hold a million hearings that change no policy while he keeps on Presidenting for another 18 months.
Congress's ultimate power IS impeachment and if you believe his crimes are high enough to meet the Constitutional bar but Congress fails to act, they haven't handled their duty.
The way the US system is set up gives the Republicans an inherent structural advantage such that the Democrats need to peel off more moderate seats to get majority to get things done. This means Democratic majorities depend on blue-dog-style democrats. Like, famously, Manchin. And that means those votes can be less reliable in some cases, especially given how weak whipping is in the american system. This is simply a fact. No amount of you sarcastically complaining about it will change that.
And what this means for the thread topic is that the possibility of Democrats voting against impeachment, in either house, is non-zero and probably higher then it is for Republicans going the other way.
that'll really sell that our party means what it says
I have acknowledged that, is the thing. My stance is we don’t know, so we should do what is right.
My position is also informed by the failure of our political class to hold their own accountable in the past. Nixon, Reagan and Iran-Contra and all the cronies involved, Bush II and the Iraq war, American torture programs, etc. We have a roadmap for what happens to politics in this country when bad actors know they are above consequences because the people who could hold them accountable are afraid of voter backlash for doing the right thing. It’s part of the reason we even have a President Trump right now. At some point the cycle needs to get broken and criminals in higher office need to actually fear the consequences of their actions.
One solution is better. This is a weird thing to say.
There is no moral obligation to engage in a specific political action as laid out by the constitution.
Trying to use the constitution as a moral framework is ridiculous. We're talking about a document that allowed slavery ffs. Literally the same people that designed the impeachment process also supported or at least allowed that black people were subhuman property.
If you think there is a moral obligation to stop Trump or to remove him from office or whatnot, then you should be looking at how you would accomplish that. Which does not necessarily mean impeachment.
- The states where we lost in 2016 are full of populist anger, to which I say Impeachment will provide fuel. I don't see this hurting any of the dem nominees that are likely to win the primary
- It will utterly occupy every facet of Trump's psyche, throwing off his campaigning game. He'll have a hard time focusing his minions towards his political opponents while he's focused on throwing hate at Pelosi (who can take it, and in fact I believe derives power from it)
- It will make Trump miserable
- It will almost certainly uncover more crimes, by people other than trump, people who can be arrested
- It will give history a more accurate look at the crimes of the American government from 2016-2020. I do not believe this is insignifcant.
You believe in a moral duty to fullfill the oath of office same as me.
I mean, the opposing opinion seems to be that the only right thing to do is to not impeach, so I find the “absolutism” accusation fairly puzzling
It's not defeatism, it's admitting that there are other potential outcomes to this action that should be taken into account.
We're fully aware of them, theyre just not serious.
But impeachment will fail. Because Congress' enforcement powers via impeachment are a sick joke. It cannot work because of the design.
So the only kind of enforcement you can do via oversight is communicating the President's many many many crimes to the public. Which you don't need to impeach to do.
Democrats would do better if they were the party of ending corruption.
Flat out straw man.
There are plenty of things to do before deciding to impeach. Many (most?) folks here are advocating for having Mueller testify before making this decision at a minimum. But no, that makes the Dems spineless wimps who don’t listen to their (not really their) “base”.
Sure they are. Just because you think they are wrong doesn't make them not serious. There are very real potential downsides here and the pros and cons of the potential actions in question can be weighted and debated.
I do? Since when?
And I don't see how the oath of office mandates impeachment anyway.
If you dont believe in a moral duty to the oath of office its little wonder you see no need for impeachment, as it makes Trump's crimes substantially less.
I dont see that there's a discussion to be had when one side makes a positive argument for an action and the other side just says "yes but also there are cons" and barely engsges past that point so Im out.
Disagreeing over whether or not we should wait to impeach until we have exhausted every other avenue of reproach is fine. I don’t really think that’s what people here are arguing about. I myself have said I’m fine with waiting until Mueller testifies for political reasons, but Trump has already met the bar for impeachment as far as I’m concerned and Mueller’s testimony isn’t going to change that one way or the other.
You’re accusing me of strawmanning you but really what happened is you strawmanned the belief that impeachment is the best course of action as “absolutism” and I pointed out that if we’re arguing disingenuously the same could be said of the viewpoint that we should not.
The quote was this:
Putting moral responsibility on impeachment alone. No other options.
This is absolutism.
Edit
Let’s take this further. Are there any resolutions you would accept outside of impeachment? I’d love to hear them if so @joshofalltrades
You could say the same about any strongly-held personal belief. “Politicians have a moral responsibility to support trans rights” = absolutism, according to this.