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.
While I agree, it is definitely a bit disingenuous to claim that the morality of the situation is irrelevant, all that matters is winning the election, and then contend some other action shouldn't be taken to win the election because it'd be immoral.
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
My problem with this argument is that it implies the GOP was right to do all the shitty things they've done because hey, all that matters is if you win and get to enact your agenda.
No it doesn't. The GOP has the power to do all the shitty things and they need to be stopped and you do that by winning elections. If you win, you get to enact your agenda as much as you can. It's not a right, it's just a fact. A thing that is true. The GOP won so they get to enact their agenda. If you want to do what's right, you fucking stop them.
How do you win a competition against an unfair opponent who can openly cheat?
In this case, since there's no referee to call down here, you have to win despite the cheating and then use the power you get when you win to change the system.
How do you even hope to stand a chance when you signal to your opponent that they should continue to cheat, as they face zero repercussions from it?
This question is built on false assumptions. Impeachment will not force Republicans to face repercussions for cheating.
Bush Jr won by manipulation in Florida. Did Democrats address the problem? The underlying problem that people are continually beating the drum about is that we need to see Democrats make the effort to do what is right. Not because it is easy or politically savvy but because it is right. TIt was not savvy to push for Black voting rights. It was right. LBJ did it with full knowledge he would lose a huge voting bloc.
Also Clinton was so damaged by impeachment that his wife's campaign was damaged by it.
Whether or not Democrats have addressed issues like the incompetence of the Florida State Democratic Party or Voter Suppression or the rigging of the federal judiciary enough before now is not relevant to whether they should impeach Trump or not.
Symptoms of a problem.
Of what problem? And how is it relevant to impeachment exactly?
Democratic reputation is relevant to impeachment. When the party isn't living up to its promise of justice people lose faith. If republicans block it then they block it. That should not affect Democratic thinking.
Do you believe Trump should be impeached for his myriad of crimes? If you have to qualify an answer then you have already lost. We are seeing real time destruction of the American Government and people are treating it like politics as usual.
In what possible way? We are seeing real time destruction of the american system, yes. Impeachment will not change that. Pointing this out is not an immediate loss, which doesn't even make sense.
The question is still whether the theatre of Trump getting impeached and then exonerated is actually relevant to the voters Democrats need in a way that other options would not be.
If political criminals aren't held accountable then we will continue to have political criminals. As I have said before I can't see any conservative democrats looking at the evidence and being riled up by impeachment. I can't see Republicans who are fed up with trump being mad at impeachment. I can see Democrats losing votes for not taking a political criminal to task.
Impeachment will not hold anyone accountable. It will, in fact, do the opposite in that it will openly demonstrate that Trump is above the law.
That you cannot think of any way that Trump's impeachment and inevitable exoneration would hurt Democratic chances is just a failure of imagination and a failure to read or listen to any of the reasons that have been given by plenty of people during this whole discussion. And I don't just mean on the forum, I mean in general. Cause the pros and cons of this are being discussed a lot of places. There's several mentioned just on this page. It is not simple and obvious how this will all play out.
Impeachment will get everybody, including low info voters, on the same page: Trump is a criminal and the GOP is letting him off the hook. My god, a criminal president is above the law! I’d better vote him out! And them too while I’m at it!
As opposed to non-impeachment, where plenty of low info voters (ie, anybody too busy to read and parse a 400 page redacted report) will take the message that if Democrats don’t impeach it’s because Trump’s crimes are not to the level of impeachment worthy.
I mean, that's what you hope will happen. It is far from the only way this plays out. In either direction.
That's basically the whole point here. We're all just guessing at what the outcome of an impeachment vs congressional hearings might be. The idea that it's certain to work out the way you want here is just not supportable. The closest thing we have to certainty in this matter is that Trump will almost certainly be acquitted by 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
Yes, that is exactly what I am advocating by saying that there exists a spectrum of morality, thanks for clarifying.
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.
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
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?
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.
While I agree, it is definitely a bit disingenuous to claim that the morality of the situation is irrelevant, all that matters is winning the election, and then contend some other action shouldn't be taken to win the election because it'd be immoral.
No it isn't. This remains a silly silly argument.
You are continuing to try and create a false dichotomy here. It's either impeachment or treason and murder and talking in the theatre! Like, listen to what you are saying, this is ridiculous.
"When it comes to whether to impeach or not, what matters is winning the election in 2020" does not mean "Do anything to win the election, including illegal things".
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?
To be fair the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats is very real
It’s just we are doing a poor job of examining a) which part of the base is being depressed, b) why, and c) what party leadership can do about it
Quaking in their boots about whether they should do the right thing or keep their jobs is... unhelpful, in that regard
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.
Also any claim that impeachment will make Democrats lose is going to need to be backed up by video evidence of what you’re seeing in your crystal ball.
Any claim that impeachment will make Democrats win is going to need to be backed up by video evidence of what you’re seeing in your crystal ball too.
Like, this goes both ways. All anyone is doing on this front is making educated guesses about how impeachment would effect the 2020 election. You can't pretend like one side is guessing but the other side knows for sure.
I am right there with you. We don’t know for sure that impeachment won’t turn out badly for us, just as we don’t know for sure that it will.
So we should just do it because it’s right. If we are shaking the political magic 8 ball and it says “Reply hazy, try again”, we should make our decisions based on our political identity, not on political calculus.
We should also completely, utterly, and wholly disregard what Republican voters think
I don't care how many poll responses you have saying they will switch parties, 2016 should tell you affirmatively that they will hold their nose and pull the lever for anyone who has an R next to their name
We also need to, for the love of god, stop basing decisions around what Fox News or Conservatives will say. Hasn't the last decade of them saying the most asinine, ludicrous things shown how pointless that is?
Worried that Trump will take victory lap when the senate doesn't vote? HE'S ALREADY TAKING VICTORY LAPS! When the other side makes up stories about your people running fictional child sex rings in the basement of a building that doesn't have a basement, and their base takes them seriously, lets stop worrying about how they'll react negatively to things we do that are legal and proper
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
Yes, that is exactly what I am advocating by saying that there exists a spectrum of morality, thanks for clarifying.
Override isn’t saying you are advocating against gender equality or trans rights. Just pointing out that if you only advocate for what is popular rather than making principled stands when it is important, the logical conclusion is you don’t stand for anything.
I think the difference right now is where you see Trump’s actions on the morality spectrum. Personally I see him as a fundamental threat to our democracy and think that is a bigger deal than almost any other single issue.
We should also completely, utterly, and wholly disregard what Republican voters think
I don't care how many poll responses you have saying they will switch parties, 2016 should tell you affirmatively that they will hold their nose and pull the lever for anyone who has an R next to their name
We also need to, for the love of god, stop basing decisions around what Fox News or Conservatives will say. Hasn't the last decade of them saying the most asinine, ludicrous things shown how pointless that is?
Worried that Trump will take victory lap when the senate does't vote? HE'S ALREADY TAKING VICTORY LAPS!
If you want impeachment to succeed, you need to think about those voters because changing their opinion is the only way that will happen.
If you don't care about impeachment succeeding and thus this is all theatre, then how the mainstream press reacts and how that effects potential democratic voters (which by necessity includes independents and the like) is of paramount importance.
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
Yes, that is exactly what I am advocating by saying that there exists a spectrum of morality, thanks for clarifying.
Override isn’t saying you are advocating against gender equality or trans rights. Just pointing out that if you only advocate for what is popular rather than making principled stands when it is important, the logical conclusion is you don’t stand for anything.
I think the difference right now is where you see Trump’s actions on the morality spectrum. Personally I see him as a fundamental threat to our democracy and think that is a bigger deal than almost any other single issue.
I can say that a belief that many democratic politicians actually don't stand for anything other than winning is present among midwest democrats
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.
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.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I wasn't saying that a trial of trump and racial equality are on the same level
Override isn’t saying you are advocating against gender equality or trans rights. Just pointing out that if you only advocate for what is popular rather than making principled stands when it is important, the logical conclusion is you don’t stand for anything.
^ that
Obviously if you have an "end racism" button and a "punish trump" button, you press the "end racism" button. Stopping Trump is pretty dang important though! He's driving the country towards a dictatorship, and fast!
And whether or not it gets picked up by the Senate, it will show future despots in chief that DONT have an unshakable cult of personality amongst their party that they probably can't get away with it. Furthermore, it will *succinctly* demonstrate who we are as a party to everyone now and to future generations - we're a party that wants to preserve the rule of law and the republic. There really is more at stake than the next election cycle, to me.
override367 on
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
We should also completely, utterly, and wholly disregard what Republican voters think
I don't care how many poll responses you have saying they will switch parties, 2016 should tell you affirmatively that they will hold their nose and pull the lever for anyone who has an R next to their name
We also need to, for the love of god, stop basing decisions around what Fox News or Conservatives will say. Hasn't the last decade of them saying the most asinine, ludicrous things shown how pointless that is?
Worried that Trump will take victory lap when the senate does't vote? HE'S ALREADY TAKING VICTORY LAPS!
If you want impeachment to succeed, you need to think about those voters because changing their opinion is the only way that will happen.
If you don't care about impeachment succeeding and thus this is all theatre, then how the mainstream press reacts and how that effects potential democratic voters (which by necessity includes independents and the like) is of paramount importance.
Also any claim that impeachment will make Democrats lose is going to need to be backed up by video evidence of what you’re seeing in your crystal ball.
Any claim that impeachment will make Democrats win is going to need to be backed up by video evidence of what you’re seeing in your crystal ball too.
Like, this goes both ways. All anyone is doing on this front is making educated guesses about how impeachment would effect the 2020 election. You can't pretend like one side is guessing but the other side knows for sure.
I am right there with you. We don’t know for sure that impeachment won’t turn out badly for us, just as we don’t know for sure that it will.
So we should just do it because it’s right. If we are shaking the political magic 8 ball and it says “Reply hazy, try again”, we should make our decisions based on our political identity, not on political calculus.
yes, just like the trap of 'elecability'... we can either try to guess what millions of people who apparently aren't voicing their true opinions are actually thinking and will vote for, or we can admit that that's hopeless and just do what's right (support the candidate you like).
if everyone is just trying to guess what everyone else wants, one you're ignoring a good thing you can be doing but two you're layering the problem. so it'd be bad enough if I thought democrats were scared to impeach because of failure being in and of itself a bad thing, or if they thought they didn't have a good argument, but to know they actually hesitated because they're playing politics? it's a slap in the face.
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?
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I know you're not asking me, but if we knew the outcomes it would completely change how I'm looking at this
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?
I'm a staunch enough utilitarian and would be willing to concede my argument if someone had a time crystal that showed that impeachment would definitely cost us the election, 100%
I don't think that's the case! Lose or win, I think it will motivate the heck out of our base! I think doing the right thing when we can't be sure if the focus groups will like it is a sign that we have convictions as a party
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?
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?
Holding both that the president is immorally corrupt and that legislature has no moral duty to impeach is not coherent.
This
Failure to impeach reduces the Dem message to a policy argument. The moral justification for challenging him becomes "bad, but not bad enough to act last year" and that just isn't a compelling message.
Far better to go into the election with either a President Pence, or a "we tried but the GOP cares nothing for the Constitution - now it's up to you, the voters, to save the Republic" message.
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.
Holding both that the president is immorally corrupt and that legislature has no moral duty to impeach is not coherent.
Sure it is. The legal and political system is in no way a moral system.
Morality and legality are rarely the same thing, and they only overlap regularly due to coincidence rather than a distinct interdependence.
The president can both be immorally corrupt, and focusing on that fact to the exclusion of all else can also be morally corrupt if it leads to bad outcomes like the morally corrupt president getting another term, and official sign off on their truly astounding acts of bad faith so far.
I'm a pretty staunch utilitarian and would be willing to concede my argument if someone had a time crystal that showed in the future that Democratic voters would look negatively on the impeachment a year from now
I don't think that's the case! Lose or win, I think it will motivate the heck out of our base!
It does illustrate that "there is a moral duty to do it" is not the full story, though.
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.
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.
We should also completely, utterly, and wholly disregard what Republican voters think
I don't care how many poll responses you have saying they will switch parties, 2016 should tell you affirmatively that they will hold their nose and pull the lever for anyone who has an R next to their name
We also need to, for the love of god, stop basing decisions around what Fox News or Conservatives will say. Hasn't the last decade of them saying the most asinine, ludicrous things shown how pointless that is?
Worried that Trump will take victory lap when the senate does't vote? HE'S ALREADY TAKING VICTORY LAPS!
If you want impeachment to succeed, you need to think about those voters because changing their opinion is the only way that will happen.
If you don't care about impeachment succeeding and thus this is all theatre, then how the mainstream press reacts and how that effects potential democratic voters (which by necessity includes independents and the like) is of paramount importance.
Elections are about turnout, not changing minds.
Turnout matters among independents too. Specifically independents in specific geographic areas even. And that can involve changing minds from not-voting to voting or the other way around. To discount this is just deliberate blindness.
If you pretend like it's only about messaging to the hardcore left-leaning base, you are not gonna succeed. That's not how the electoral college, the Senate or the House seats on the margins break down.
I'm a pretty staunch utilitarian and would be willing to concede my argument if someone had a time crystal that showed in the future that Democratic voters would look negatively on the impeachment a year from now
I don't think that's the case! Lose or win, I think it will motivate the heck out of our base!
It does illustrate that "there is a moral duty to do it" is not the full story, though.
No but it's a heckin big one
and since nobody has a time machine showing us it will definitely end in calamity, and there are too many moving parts and too many unknown unknowns, why is there even an argument about doing 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?
I don't see the relevance of a fantasy scenario where we have precognition. What if you knew for a fact that not impeaching would win the election but codify that the President is an autocrat beyond the law and the legislature is a rubber stamp, leading to America declining into despotism over the next century?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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 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?
I don't see the relevance of a fantasy scenario where we have precognition. What if you knew for a fact that not impeaching would win the election but codify that the President is an autocrat beyond the law and the legislature is a rubber stamp, leading to America declining into despotism over the next century?
I'm not advocating for not impeaching - where did I do that? I'm saying that there is more math to the decision than "is it morally right?"
Posts
While I agree, it is definitely a bit disingenuous to claim that the morality of the situation is irrelevant, all that matters is winning the election, and then contend some other action shouldn't be taken to win the election because it'd be immoral.
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
I mean, that's what you hope will happen. It is far from the only way this plays out. In either direction.
That's basically the whole point here. We're all just guessing at what the outcome of an impeachment vs congressional hearings might be. The idea that it's certain to work out the way you want here is just not supportable. The closest thing we have to certainty in this matter is that Trump will almost certainly be acquitted by the Senate.
Yes, that is exactly what I am advocating by saying that there exists a spectrum of morality, thanks for clarifying.
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.
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
So we should assume in any undertaking that the Republicans will vote as a unified block, but the Democrats won't?
No it isn't. This remains a silly silly argument.
You are continuing to try and create a false dichotomy here. It's either impeachment or treason and murder and talking in the theatre! Like, listen to what you are saying, this is ridiculous.
"When it comes to whether to impeach or not, what matters is winning the election in 2020" does not mean "Do anything to win the election, including illegal things".
To be fair the lack of enthusiasm among Democrats is very real
It’s just we are doing a poor job of examining a) which part of the base is being depressed, b) why, and c) what party leadership can do about it
Quaking in their boots about whether they should do the right thing or keep their jobs is... unhelpful, in that regard
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.
I am right there with you. We don’t know for sure that impeachment won’t turn out badly for us, just as we don’t know for sure that it will.
So we should just do it because it’s right. If we are shaking the political magic 8 ball and it says “Reply hazy, try again”, we should make our decisions based on our political identity, not on political calculus.
I don't care how many poll responses you have saying they will switch parties, 2016 should tell you affirmatively that they will hold their nose and pull the lever for anyone who has an R next to their name
We also need to, for the love of god, stop basing decisions around what Fox News or Conservatives will say. Hasn't the last decade of them saying the most asinine, ludicrous things shown how pointless that is?
Worried that Trump will take victory lap when the senate doesn't vote? HE'S ALREADY TAKING VICTORY LAPS! When the other side makes up stories about your people running fictional child sex rings in the basement of a building that doesn't have a basement, and their base takes them seriously, lets stop worrying about how they'll react negatively to things we do that are legal and proper
Override isn’t saying you are advocating against gender equality or trans rights. Just pointing out that if you only advocate for what is popular rather than making principled stands when it is important, the logical conclusion is you don’t stand for anything.
I think the difference right now is where you see Trump’s actions on the morality spectrum. Personally I see him as a fundamental threat to our democracy and think that is a bigger deal than almost any other single issue.
If you want impeachment to succeed, you need to think about those voters because changing their opinion is the only way that will happen.
If you don't care about impeachment succeeding and thus this is all theatre, then how the mainstream press reacts and how that effects potential democratic voters (which by necessity includes independents and the like) is of paramount importance.
I can say that a belief that many democratic politicians actually don't stand for anything other than winning is present among midwest democrats
do with that what you want
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.
^ that
Obviously if you have an "end racism" button and a "punish trump" button, you press the "end racism" button. Stopping Trump is pretty dang important though! He's driving the country towards a dictatorship, and fast!
And whether or not it gets picked up by the Senate, it will show future despots in chief that DONT have an unshakable cult of personality amongst their party that they probably can't get away with it. Furthermore, it will *succinctly* demonstrate who we are as a party to everyone now and to future generations - we're a party that wants to preserve the rule of law and the republic. There really is more at stake than the next election cycle, to me.
Elections are about turnout, not changing minds.
Not if that constitutionally proscribed action causes a ton of harm.
yes, just like the trap of 'elecability'... we can either try to guess what millions of people who apparently aren't voicing their true opinions are actually thinking and will vote for, or we can admit that that's hopeless and just do what's right (support the candidate you like).
if everyone is just trying to guess what everyone else wants, one you're ignoring a good thing you can be doing but two you're layering the problem. so it'd be bad enough if I thought democrats were scared to impeach because of failure being in and of itself a bad thing, or if they thought they didn't have a good argument, but to know they actually hesitated because they're playing politics? it's a slap in the face.
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?
I don't think that's the case! Lose or win, I think it will motivate the heck out of our base! I think doing the right thing when we can't be sure if the focus groups will like it is a sign that we have convictions as a party
2016 is calling, something something something.
Whether we had it then is another thread
This
Failure to impeach reduces the Dem message to a policy argument. The moral justification for challenging him becomes "bad, but not bad enough to act last year" and that just isn't a compelling message.
Far better to go into the election with either a President Pence, or a "we tried but the GOP cares nothing for the Constitution - now it's up to you, the voters, to save the Republic" message.
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.
Based on what? The potential action the constitution allows is silly and nonfunctional and the constitution has no moral weight anyway.
Sure it is. The legal and political system is in no way a moral system.
Morality and legality are rarely the same thing, and they only overlap regularly due to coincidence rather than a distinct interdependence.
The president can both be immorally corrupt, and focusing on that fact to the exclusion of all else can also be morally corrupt if it leads to bad outcomes like the morally corrupt president getting another term, and official sign off on their truly astounding acts of bad faith so far.
It does illustrate that "there is a moral duty to do it" is not the full story, though.
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.
Turnout matters among independents too. Specifically independents in specific geographic areas even. And that can involve changing minds from not-voting to voting or the other way around. To discount this is just deliberate blindness.
If you pretend like it's only about messaging to the hardcore left-leaning base, you are not gonna succeed. That's not how the electoral college, the Senate or the House seats on the margins break down.
No but it's a heckin big one
and since nobody has a time machine showing us it will definitely end in calamity, and there are too many moving parts and too many unknown unknowns, why is there even an argument about doing the right thing
I don't see the relevance of a fantasy scenario where we have precognition. What if you knew for a fact that not impeaching would win the election but codify that the President is an autocrat beyond the law and the legislature is a rubber stamp, leading to America declining into despotism over the next century?
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'm not advocating for not impeaching - where did I do that? I'm saying that there is more math to the decision than "is it morally right?"