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”.
Mueller already delivered nearly five hundred pages of testimony. What exactly do you think he is going to say that will sway the calculus?
If he’s willing to answer the question of “would you have indicted Donald Trump if he wasn’t the President”...and of that answer is “yes”. I think it would swing things pretty strongly.
He will give a couched answer. He’ll just keep dancing. If your expecting some direct master we got him stroke, it’s just not going to happen.
How can you possibly say this for certain? I’ve paid very close attention to this whole thing and I can’t tell you what Mueller’s voice sounds like. The guy doesn’t give interviews, where is this crystal ball that assures you he will do what you say?
He’s already said nearly as much as I theorized in the summary of section 2.
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”.
Mueller already delivered nearly five hundred pages of testimony. What exactly do you think he is going to say that will sway the calculus?
If he’s willing to answer the question of “would you have indicted Donald Trump if he wasn’t the President”...and of that answer is “yes”. I think it would swing things pretty strongly.
He will give a couched answer. He’ll just keep dancing. If your expecting some direct master we got him stroke, it’s just not going to happen.
How can you possibly say this for certain? I’ve paid very close attention to this whole thing and I can’t tell you what Mueller’s voice sounds like. The guy doesn’t give interviews, where is this crystal ball that assures you he will do what you say?
He’s already said nearly as much as I theorized in the summary of section 2.
My dude, that's what we're talking about. His reputation is well known. He's a tight lipped ur-cop. He's not going to start ranting and raving against Trump or whatever.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
"oh well fuck it, justice is a lie anyway" probably needs to be workshopped a little more if we're gonna use it as a party slogan in 2020
It's not a good political slogan, but it's the world we have always lived in.
Laws have never been, and likely will never be, universally or equally enforced. Insisting that a thing that's never happened underpins all functioning societies is a bit silly.
You want to get super cynical? fine
Universal justice is indeed a lie
But what I said was "the goal of universal justice" is one of the underpinnings of functional society
the rule of law is fiat currency, it only works if we all believe in it
The idea that there is some possibility of fairness in the system keeps society from collapsing
Justice is a useful lie because if everyone truly believed that a fair and just system was not the goal, was not what the system was trying to do, was not achievable, was not true in the slightest, then they would riot or turn to vigilantism or start mafias and never stop
We need at least the pretense of justice in order to get most people in society to keep going to work and buying things and all the other normal society stuff that keeps things running
If I'm not mistaken you're not advocating revolution, you're advocating people vote Trump out of office--but what if I told you our elections weren't secure and our campaign finance laws are not enforced and there are no consequences for cheating with foreign powers? Do you believe our electoral process is universally fair? Or is that just the lie you prefer?
Im suggesting that outside revolution, a thing we are not allowed to discuss here, that is the only option left to us.
In this place we stick to a conversation predicated on the idea that violence is to be abhored at all times and that talk of revolution is unacceptable. Given those strictures we must work under the assumption that the voting system is not compromised and that our votes are in fact counted in some way and that election day isn't just a big meaningless show in front of a pre determined outcome. Cause if we're working with the idea that the voting system is actually compromised... well we can't talk about that here.
I don't think the voting system is fair, the fact we've taken the vote from large swaths of minorities via an unjust legal system illustrates it isn't fair. It is however our only actual recourse.
Okay, but that isn't an argument against impeachment?
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”.
Mueller already delivered nearly five hundred pages of testimony. What exactly do you think he is going to say that will sway the calculus?
If he’s willing to answer the question of “would you have indicted Donald Trump if he wasn’t the President”...and of that answer is “yes”. I think it would swing things pretty strongly.
He will give a couched answer. He’ll just keep dancing. If your expecting some direct master we got him stroke, it’s just not going to happen.
How can you possibly say this for certain? I’ve paid very close attention to this whole thing and I can’t tell you what Mueller’s voice sounds like. The guy doesn’t give interviews, where is this crystal ball that assures you he will do what you say?
He’s already said nearly as much as I theorized in the summary of section 2.
My dude, that's what we're talking about. His reputation is well known. He's a tight lipped ur-cop. He's not going to start ranting and raving against Trump or whatever.
I never said he would start “ranting and raving” I would appreciate it if you didn’t try to present what I’m saying in such a bad faith way. It doesn’t help anything.
What I’m saying is, that the guy who wrote the summary for that report, might say “yes” when asked if he would have indicted Trump if he could have.
He might not answer, I have no idea. And that’s my point, none of us do. So I think it’s a good idea to ask...and I’m fine with Democrats doing that as part of their impeachment investigation.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered 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”.
Mueller already delivered nearly five hundred pages of testimony. What exactly do you think he is going to say that will sway the calculus?
If he’s willing to answer the question of “would you have indicted Donald Trump if he wasn’t the President”...and of that answer is “yes”. I think it would swing things pretty strongly.
He will give a couched answer. He’ll just keep dancing. If your expecting some direct master we got him stroke, it’s just not going to happen.
How can you possibly say this for certain? I’ve paid very close attention to this whole thing and I can’t tell you what Mueller’s voice sounds like. The guy doesn’t give interviews, where is this crystal ball that assures you he will do what you say?
He’s already said nearly as much as I theorized in the summary of section 2.
He’s an FBI interrogator, attorney and professional bureaucrat. He’ll avoid giving an opinion, he’ll testify to direct fact related questions, and dodge opinion related questioning.
"oh well fuck it, justice is a lie anyway" probably needs to be workshopped a little more if we're gonna use it as a party slogan in 2020
It's not a good political slogan, but it's the world we have always lived in.
Laws have never been, and likely will never be, universally or equally enforced. Insisting that a thing that's never happened underpins all functioning societies is a bit silly.
You want to get super cynical? fine
Universal justice is indeed a lie
But what I said was "the goal of universal justice" is one of the underpinnings of functional society
the rule of law is fiat currency, it only works if we all believe in it
The idea that there is some possibility of fairness in the system keeps society from collapsing
Justice is a useful lie because if everyone truly believed that a fair and just system was not the goal, was not what the system was trying to do, was not achievable, was not true in the slightest, then they would riot or turn to vigilantism or start mafias and never stop
We need at least the pretense of justice in order to get most people in society to keep going to work and buying things and all the other normal society stuff that keeps things running
If I'm not mistaken you're not advocating revolution, you're advocating people vote Trump out of office--but what if I told you our elections weren't secure and our campaign finance laws are not enforced and there are no consequences for cheating with foreign powers? Do you believe our electoral process is universally fair? Or is that just the lie you prefer?
Im suggesting that outside revolution, a thing we are not allowed to discuss here, that is the only option left to us.
In this place we stick to a conversation predicated on the idea that violence is to be abhored at all times and that talk of revolution is unacceptable. Given those strictures we must work under the assumption that the voting system is not compromised and that our votes are in fact counted in some way and that election day isn't just a big meaningless show in front of a pre determined outcome. Cause if we're working with the idea that the voting system is actually compromised... well we can't talk about that here.
I don't think the voting system is fair, the fact we've taken the vote from large swaths of minorities via an unjust legal system illustrates it isn't fair. It is however our only actual recourse.
Okay, but that isn't an argument against impeachment?
The argument against impeachment is that its end states are all really good messaging for Republicans and that anything helping them maintain Republican rulership is amoral regardless of its legal implications.
He’s an FBI interrogator, attorney and professional bureaucrat. He’ll avoid giving an opinion, he’ll testify to direct fact related questions, and dodge opinion related questioning.
I understand why you think this might be the case, but you have no way to be certain of this.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I think this conversation has kind of run its course as far as generating productive discourse.
Geth, close the thread.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
How can you possibly say this for certain? I’ve paid very close attention to this whole thing and I can’t tell you what Mueller’s voice sounds like. The guy doesn’t give interviews, where is this crystal ball that assures you he will do what you say?
He’s already said nearly as much as I theorized in the summary of section 2.
My dude, that's what we're talking about. His reputation is well known. He's a tight lipped ur-cop. He's not going to start ranting and raving against Trump or whatever.
Okay, but that isn't an argument against impeachment?
I never said he would start “ranting and raving” I would appreciate it if you didn’t try to present what I’m saying in such a bad faith way. It doesn’t help anything.
What I’m saying is, that the guy who wrote the summary for that report, might say “yes” when asked if he would have indicted Trump if he could have.
He might not answer, I have no idea. And that’s my point, none of us do. So I think it’s a good idea to ask...and I’m fine with Democrats doing that as part of their impeachment investigation.
The argument against impeachment is that its end states are all really good messaging for Republicans and that anything helping them maintain Republican rulership is amoral regardless of its legal implications.
I understand why you think this might be the case, but you have no way to be certain of this.
Geth, close the thread.