(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???

(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.

(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.

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

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.

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.”

(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.

(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.”

(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.

(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...

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

(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.

• 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