(01-27-2020 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:15 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Still got quibbles. The article also does not support the assertion that "The primary reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election." It's just a few pundits discussing the senate election ramifications of impeachment. It does not offer support to the idea that it is either the only or the primary reason democrats have taken these actions.

In your second article, Pelosi explicitly lays out why she's seeking impeachment:


No alternative explanation is offered by the article.

Or, you could use your common sense instead of searching for explicit words. Few people with ulterior motives will explicitly lay those out.

Haven't you argued that Dems have been trying to impeach him since he got elected?

Yep. Is it untrue?

And now, with the 2020 election looming, they decided on the reason du jour to do it now and went ahead. They could not find a crime, Mueller found no collusion, the economy is good, we are not in WW III as predicted, and they are desperate for something to help them win in 2020, either POTUS, and/or the Senate, and/or the House, or all three.

The goal of the DNC is to win. When it appeared that the obvious shoo-in Hillary might lose the nomination, they cheated to push her over the top. The goal is always to win. Kind of backfired on them in 2016, so that situation needs rectifying.

Well which is it?


Have Dems been trying to impeach Trump since Day 1? Or did this just come up, as a way to influence the 2020 election???

Whoosh. It is not either/or.

It is both.

Early on, I think the primary focus was to correct what they saw as a stolen election. Most of them will never admit it was done fair and square. Gotta be Russians buying Facebook ads.

But now, with over 3/4 of the term expired, their focus has turned to winning in 2020. They cannot salvage the last term. Best to save the next one.

(01-27-2020 12:11 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 11:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:41 PM)mrbig Wrote:  As a side note, purposefully or not, OO seems to have blocked me. He sent me a kind and respectful PM yesterday morning and I couldn't respond because I'm on his block list. So it occurs to me that he isn't seeing any of my responses to his comments.

You are right, I have you on ignore. I did so in response to ...I don't remember.

You are not the first to go my ignore list, nor will you be the first to come back off it.

I open most of your posts anyway, so I will take off my ignore list.

Okey dokey! I haven't used the Ignore feature yet. I've decided to not take anything too personally on the quad, so I doubt I will ever use it. I just won't respond to as much.

OK, you are off the Ignore list.

I don't take much personally either. I doubt it was anything personal in your case. I think it was frustration with not being heard. But I truly don't remember.

(01-27-2020 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  I was responding to this post from OO:

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1 The only reason for this 2020 impeachment is to try influence the 2020 election.

So by sentence:
1 - I don't think the only reason for impeachment is to influence the 2020 election. To the contrary, I think the reason the Dems as a party did not start impeachment over anything until Ukraine is because they did not want impeachment to fire up Trump's base heading into the 2020 election. Sure, there were a few prominent Dem politicians talking about impeachment early and often. I also believe the majority of dem politicians sincerely believe Trump's handling of Ukraine in 2019 was impeachable conduct, which is why they are doing it regardless of whether it helps or hurts politically.

1- If the reason is not remove him, what are the reasons? FTR, I don't believe in the purity of the Democrats.

(01-27-2020 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess you want to quibble over the word"only". I will replace it with "primary" if that make you unquibblanacious..

OR, you can explain to me what the Democrats expect to get out of a doomed impeachment.

I'm not trying to quibble. You used the word "only" and I responded to your use of that word. Not even sure I'd agree with "primary".

My interpretation is that democrats, from a political perspective, generally viewed impeachment as a double-edged sword. Maybe it would hurt Trump, maybe it would hurt Democrats (like the Clinton impeachment likely hurt Republicans). So to protect House members in swing districts, House leadership decided not to pursue impeachment (or even push harder for it when they were in the minority) specifically because they were worried about the electoral implications in 2018 and 2020.

It was only when faced with something that the Democrats felt was a clear-cut case of abuse of power and easy enough to explain did they move forward with impeachment. So while the Democrats certainly considered the implications impeachment might have on the 2020 election, they didn't do it to try and influence the election. They almost didn't do it because they were worried about the influence impeachment might have on the 2020 election. They are doing it in spite of their fear that impeachment may hurt them in the 2020 election. I do believe that, now that they have chosen to go down the impeachment path, they are going to try and use it to their advantage in the 2020 election. But that is not what you wrote.

Personally, I wish Dems had done more investigation into the emoluments clause issues to possibly impeach for that reason. Trump and his family are making millions and millions because Trump plays golf at his own courses, stays at his own resorts, and drags a huge retinue of federal employees along with him. Plus foreign countries, lobbyists, etc. staying at Trump properties. As a federal employee who tries to pinch pennies at work all the time to save the tax payers money, it drives me crazy.

(01-27-2020 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Mueller found no collusion

Ummm ... NO! Mueller explicitly did not evaluate collusion. From page 2 of the report:

Quote:In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

From page 181 of the report:

Quote:For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.”

Admittedly, a bit of concern trolling on my part, but one would be inhuman not to feel at least a tiny bit sympathetic to Team Trump with the Bolton leak dropping late Sunday night.

Offf.

From the little I've heard today, no acknowledgement in the presentations? Probably right move.

(01-27-2020 04:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Admittedly, a bit of concern trolling on my part, but one would be inhuman not to feel at least a tiny bit sympathetic to Team Trump with the Bolton leak dropping late Sunday night.

Offf.

From the little I've heard today, no acknowledgement in the presentations? Probably right move.

No one really knows what the Bolton book actually says, that is in full and in context.

Remember this is the same Grey Lady that slimed the Covington kids by its not full and not in context reporting.

(01-27-2020 04:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Mueller found no collusion

Ummm ... NO! Mueller explicitly did not evaluate collusion. From page 2 of the report:

Quote:In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

From page 181 of the report:

Quote:For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.”

Yeah, well, whatever Democrats were were hoping Mueller would find, hr didn't find it.

A rose by any other name...

Big - I would put more faith in this assessment of yours(It was only when faced with something that the Democrats felt was a clear-cut case of abuse of power and easy enough to explain did they move forward with impeachment.) if the same Democrats 21 years ago when faced a truly clear cut case with physical evidence hadn't moved to deny it.

I would also put more faith in it if it didn't imply that only R's were acting politically.

We keep hearing this is not a legal matter, but a political one. I think every choice made on both sides is political.

The Dems wanted impeachment early on to get Trump out, and were relying on Mueller to provide the evidence.

When that didn't happen, they had to regroup. Unfortunately for the DNC, Trump kept keeping his promises and making good things happen. So the question becomes, How to make him a one term President when he is doing so well?

The best way is to smear him and his supporters through the agency of an impeachment trial. They get to broadcast negative things for hours on main steam media. Then they get to run against Republicans based on their votes for impeachment or removal.

Not perfect, but it is their best shot - and they are taking it.

Nothing that has happened in this impeachment is not politically driven. If you want to believe that high minded democrats just HAD to act, I guess you can. I believe that politically driven politicians are acting in what they believe to be their best political interests. Both sides, of course. Not just the R's.

The veil over the hypocrisy of the Dems is thin. Only those who do not want to see past it are fooled.

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.

I gotta call you out on this one...

If the rules were different, Trump would have run a different campaign. MAYBE he still loses, or maybe people like me, Numbers and Tanq... all of whom I believe voted 3rd party because our votes didn't matter, vote 'against' Hillary and thus 'for' Trump.

I mean, when you have the small number of people that we have on here and that many of us (I believe OO as well, but maybe not) exercised the appropriate use of our vote as opposed to thinking about a 'popular vote' is meaningful.

The electoral college isn't the will of the voters is only true if those are the rules under which votes are cast.

As to the rest of this, the leadership in the party obviously disagrees with this. They aren't running against those who support Trump's policies or even his policies. They're very clearly running against Trump. You say that's not how you feel, I'll take you at your word... but I hope you'd agree that these comments/beliefs.. that they're running against Trump, the man... isn't ridiculous.

(01-27-2020 05:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 04:24 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Mueller found no collusion

Ummm ... NO! Mueller explicitly did not evaluate collusion.

Yeah, well, whatever Democrats were were hoping Mueller would find, hr didn't find it.

A rose by any other name...

I have a different take. My take is that Mueller found a lot of what Dems were expecting to be found, but because Mueller did not take a specific stance on impeachment/indictment, Dems were too cowardly to take the steps on their own. They were hoping Mueller would provide them with an independent shield to protect them from impeachment's double-edged sword and Mueller refused to do so. This was because (from Volume II, pages 1-2):

Quote:First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. ... we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct [footnote cites impeachment power of Congress].
...
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. ... Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. ... The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.
...
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

To summarize, because Mueller did not believe he could prosecute a sitting President, he did not evaluate the evidence in a way that resulted in an ultimate conclusion regarding whether the President committed a crime. That said, the investigation did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice and impeachment was noted to be a remedy. But the Dems were too scared to impeach unless Mueller specifically said that Trump committed a crime (which Mueller refused to evaluate) or unless Mueller said that Trump committed an impeachable offense (which was not Mueller's job, that is the House's job).

(01-27-2020 04:58 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Admittedly, a bit of concern trolling on my part, but one would be inhuman not to feel at least a tiny bit sympathetic to Team Trump with the Bolton leak dropping late Sunday night.

Yeah, between the Bolton stuff and the Lev Parnas stuff, lots of evolving information to either have to weave into opening arguments or decide to leave out.

(01-27-2020 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  7 Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters.

7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.

I gotta call you out on this one...

If the rules were different, Trump would have run a different campaign. MAYBE he still loses, or maybe people like me, Numbers and Tanq... all of whom I believe voted 3rd party because our votes didn't matter, vote 'against' Hillary and thus 'for' Trump.

I mean, when you have the small number of people that we have on here and that many of us (I believe OO as well, but maybe not) exercised the appropriate use of our vote as opposed to thinking about a 'popular vote' is meaningful.

The electoral college isn't the will of the voters is only true if those are the rules under which votes are cast.

As to the rest of this, the leadership in the party obviously disagrees with this. They aren't running against those who support Trump's policies or even his policies. They're very clearly running against Trump. You say that's not how you feel, I'll take you at your word... but I hope you'd agree that these comments/beliefs.. that they're running against Trump, the man... isn't ridiculous.

I don't see how you are calling me out. OO was arguing that Democrats do not want to leave electing a President in 2024 to "the hands of the voters." I merely pointed out that our current system, the electoral college, explicitly does not leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters. So the 2016 election wasn't left in the hands of the voters. Neither were the 2012, 2008, 2004, or 2000 elections. Neither will be the 2020 election for sure. They will be left in the hands of the electors in the electoral college. If it was left to the hands of the voters, then the popular vote would reign supreme.

It is a very technical argument and I get what you are saying. My point is that OO's premise, that the voters decided in 2016, is flawed. If the voters decided, the person with more votes would have won. As far as I know, that is how it works in every single election in the USA except for presidential elections. It is specifically because voters do not decide the election of presidents that Trump ran the campaign he did and won the electoral college. If voters decided, Trump likely would have spent far more time in California and Texas and less in Wisconsin and Michigan.

(01-27-2020 06:27 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 06:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 12:33 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  7 Maybe then they will leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters.

7 - they did this in 2016 and the voters gave Clinton 2.9 million more votes. most likely the 2024 election will still be in the hands of the electors from the electoral college who are elected by the voters, rather than the voters directly electing the president.

I gotta call you out on this one...

If the rules were different, Trump would have run a different campaign. MAYBE he still loses, or maybe people like me, Numbers and Tanq... all of whom I believe voted 3rd party because our votes didn't matter, vote 'against' Hillary and thus 'for' Trump.

I mean, when you have the small number of people that we have on here and that many of us (I believe OO as well, but maybe not) exercised the appropriate use of our vote as opposed to thinking about a 'popular vote' is meaningful.

The electoral college isn't the will of the voters is only true if those are the rules under which votes are cast.

As to the rest of this, the leadership in the party obviously disagrees with this. They aren't running against those who support Trump's policies or even his policies. They're very clearly running against Trump. You say that's not how you feel, I'll take you at your word... but I hope you'd agree that these comments/beliefs.. that they're running against Trump, the man... isn't ridiculous.

I don't see how you are calling me out. OO was arguing that Democrats do not want to leave electing a President in 2024 to "the hands of the voters." I merely pointed out that our current system, the electoral college, explicitly does not leave the selection of a President in the hands of the voters. So the 2016 election wasn't left in the hands of the voters. Neither were the 2012, 2008, 2004, or 2000 elections. Neither will be the 2020 election for sure. They will be left in the hands of the electors in the electoral college. If it was left to the hands of the voters, then the popular vote would reign supreme.

It is a very technical argument and I get what you are saying. My point is that OO's premise, that the voters decided in 2016, is flawed. If the voters decided, the person with more votes would have won. As far as I know, that is how it works in every single election in the USA except for presidential elections. It is specifically because voters do not decide the election of presidents that Trump ran the campaign he did and won the electoral college. If voters decided, Trump likely would have spent far more time in California and Texas and less in Wisconsin and Michigan.

But the Constitution outlines the legal way to elect the president. Are you saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

A very technical and hair-splitting argument. I would argue that the voters DID decide 2016 and every other Presidential election by voting for the electors pledged to a given candidate. It the voters did not elect the electors, then who did?

But more specifically the democrats are worried that if they just let voters vote, as every time before, they may re-elect Trump, and that cannot be be allowed. They want to make him a one term President.

This old tired argument about the electoral college is like one football team with two touchdowns complaining because the victory was awarded to a team with no TDs, but 5 FGs, on the grounds that TDs are what should count. If you don't like the game, or cannot play within the current rules, change the rules. Legally.

I used to think a popular vote should also be used for president, but I long ago (not 2016) changed my mind on that. I like that corruption stops at the state line.

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But the Constitution outlines the legal way to elect the president. Are you saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

A very technical and hair-splitting argument. I would argue that the voters DID decide 2016 and every other Presidential election by voting for the electors pledged to a given candidate. It the voters did not elect the electors, then who did?

But more specifically the democrats are worried that if they just let voters vote, as every time before, they may re-elect Trump, and that cannot be be allowed. They want to make him a one term President.

This old tired argument about the electoral college is like one football team with two touchdowns complaining because the victory was awarded to a team with no TDs, but 5 FGs, on the grounds that TDs are what should count. If you don't like the game, or cannot play within the current rules, change the rules. Legally.

I used to think a popular vote should also be used for president, but I long ago (not 2016) changed my mind on that. I like that corruption stops at the state line.

What do you mean by the bolded?



Constitutionally, the electors can do whatever they want.

Quote:There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

(01-27-2020 09:56 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 09:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But the Constitution outlines the legal way to elect the president. Are you saying the Constitution is unconstitutional?

A very technical and hair-splitting argument. I would argue that the voters DID decide 2016 and every other Presidential election by voting for the electors pledged to a given candidate. It the voters did not elect the electors, then who did?

But more specifically the democrats are worried that if they just let voters vote, as every time before, they may re-elect Trump, and that cannot be be allowed. They want to make him a one term President.

This old tired argument about the electoral college is like one football team with two touchdowns complaining because the victory was awarded to a team with no TDs, but 5 FGs, on the grounds that TDs are what should count. If you don't like the game, or cannot play within the current rules, change the rules. Legally.

I used to think a popular vote should also be used for president, but I long ago (not 2016) changed my mind on that. I like that corruption stops at the state line.

What do you mean by the bolded?



Constitutionally, the electors can do whatever they want.

Quote:There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

I mean I like that state by state electors provide a firewall against fraud that could steal an election. As it stands now, Democrats in Illinois can stuff the ballot boxes all they want, and it only affects the electoral votes for Illinois. Same in Nebraska or California. And the party liable to be doing the stuffing in those states would probably be getting those electoral votes anyway. But this way, a stuffed ballot box in Massachusetts or Tennessee does not rob voters in Texas or Vermont, as would be the case if the President was elected by popular vote.

Yes, I know electors are not bound, and that is why we saw tearful democrats exhorting them to not vote for Trump and screaming that this is THEIR America
But the electors are pretty honorable people, and I expect nearly all would cast their votes according to the wishes of the people who elected them.

My father was a presidential elector in 1988. One of the proudest moments of his life.

Quote:I mean I like that state by state electors provide a firewall against fraud that could steal an election. As it stands now, Democrats in Illinois can stuff the ballot boxes all they want, and it only affects the electoral votes for Illinois. Same in Nebraska or California. And the party liable to be doing the stuffing in those states would probably be getting those electoral votes anyway. But this way, a stuffed ballot box in Massachusetts or Tennessee does not rob voters in Texas or Vermont, as would be the case if the President was elected by popular vote.

Preferring the electoral college process over popular vote on the notion that it reduces the potential for vote rigging strikes me as spectacularly stupid.

(01-27-2020 10:27 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Preferring the elector college process over popular vote on the notion that it reduces the potential for vote rigging strikes me as spectacularly stupid.

Ignoring the facts is IMO particularly stupid.

But, stupid is as stupid does. You think as you want, Forrest.

Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

(01-27-2020 11:06 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Debatable, but not dumb reasons to favor the electoral college would have included:

• Ensuring that rural areas are adequately considered and represented in presidential elections
• Because it tends to give an advantage to candidates who align with my views
  

It makes a contested election easy to decide. Instead of recounting umpteen million votes, all one has to do is count one state.

It lessens that chance of a recount. For example, even though Nixon may possibly have won the Illinois *and* national popular vote w/o fraud, he would have had to ixnay the Illinois vote *and* somehow find several other states to roll back. Not really feasible given the electoral vote gap.