Impeachment

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The main reason that the Clinton impeachment hearings were public were that the Republicans wanted it to be a public spectacle that embarrassed the president. That largely failed, as most of the public didn't really care that much whether Clinton had an affair and then lied about it. Significantly, there was never an allegations that Clinton abused his power, just that he was a despicable human being and lied about it.

Today Rep. Matt Gaetz, probably Trump's closest ally in the House, tried to crash the Fiona Hill deposition despite not being a member of any of the committees conducting the inquiry (Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs). His argument was that he was entitled to be there because he is a member of the Judiciary Committee, even though the Judiciary Committee is not conducting the deposition. That argument did not go over well with the non-partisan parliamentarian charged with enforcing House rules.

Gaetz, you may recall, is the same young man who sent a tweet out the night before Michael Cohen's public testimony before the Oversight Committee (which Gaetz was not on then, either) threatening Cohen's family, which led to an as yet unresolved complaint made against Gaetz to the Florida state bar. When that is combined with the other efforts that have already been made to prevent cooperation with the inquiry, I can understand why Schiff et al. are trying to be careful.

[Dave_LF]

I keeping reading "Sondland" as "Scotland," and it only makes things marginally weirder.

[Cerin]

Rose, that appears to be a different page than your previous link took me to. Thanks for providing that info.

Using nearly verbatim talking points from one side doesn't help that impression.

Moderators

As this is the second time I've had to address this insult today, could you please provide clarification. Is it permissible in this forum for one poster to accuse another poster of using talking points? Must I prepare myself to be regularly insulted if I choose to post here?

Thank you.


edit

At the very least, I would think the person accusing another of using talking points should have to provide a quote, with reference, of the supposed talking points they are referring to.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sadly, there really aren't "moderators" any more. There is just me. I will take this opportunity to ask people -- including myself -- to make an extra effort to be respectful of others and to keep in mind that what is clear to one person's perspective is not so clear to someone else's.

For my part, Cerin, I apologize for the tone and content of some of my own posts directed at you. This is an challenging time for many people and emotions do run high. But that is no excuse for failing to uphold the highest possible standards of discourse that I have always sought to maintain both for this board and for myself personally. I do value your participation in these discussions and the last thing that I would want to see happen is for you to feel too uncomfortable to continue to engage.

[Cerin]

Thank you, Voronwë.

On several issues these days, I find myself sharing the Republican point of view. For that reason, I don't think it could be called surprising that when I express my thoughts on those issues, they sound similar to the thoughts expressed in print or on broadcast news by people representing that point of view, and the same for the posts of those sharing the Democratic point of view reflecting public statements representing that point of view. It seems quite logical to me, even inevitable, that that would occur. But I believe all of us here are intelligent enough to express our own thoughts in our own words.

[Faramond]

Who is the audience that needs to be convinced for Trump to be removed from office?

The reductive answer is 20 or so Republican senators, but what I really want to know is who needs to be convinced that would put enough pressure to sway those Republican senators to vote for removal?

The answer, surely, must in the end be that convincing Republican voters is essential to removal of Trump. I don't think having all Democratic and swing voters in favor of removal would by itself quite be enough to swing many Republican senators. ( It couldn't hurt, of course. )

There is some portion of Trump voters who will never stop backing him, for the simple reason that any argument against Trump is in their minds corrupt for the simple reason that anti-Trumpism is always corrupt and very probably treasonous. A cult of personality built around hatred of the other side and distrust of the media.

But I think there are enough Republican voters who could be persuaded to swing enough Republican senators to vote for removal.

As a practical matter those who want to remove Trump would probably do well to make arguments that will sway these voters. But -- I wonder how many anti-Trump people are even capable of this?

This is all a bit premature, of course. It may well be the new facts will come out that will make convincing these voters somewhat easier.

[Faramond]

I think that, usually, "Talking Points" is either a lazy response to a good argument or a descriptive response to a lazy argument.

In other words, when "talking points" comes up it is a symptom of a sick thread. I have no opinion on who is or is not to blame, if even anyone is to blame.

[elengil]

As a practical matter those who want to remove Trump would probably do well to make arguments that will sway these voters. But -- I wonder how many anti-Trump people are even capable of this?

It may be argued that pro-Trump voters are not capable of being swayed by arguments. So that kind of thinking can cut both ways.

[Faramond]

As a practical matter those who want to remove Trump would probably do well to make arguments that will sway these voters. But -- I wonder how many anti-Trump people are even capable of this?

It may be argued that pro-Trump voters are not capable of being swayed by arguments. So that kind of thinking can cut both ways.

Then what swayed them to vote for Trump in the first place?

This is exactly what I am talking about! If you think that zero pro-Trump voters can be persuaded then you aren't capable of making an argument that will sway some of them. You have defeated yourself.

I think there are plenty of anti-Trump liberals and conservatives out there capable to making these arguments, by the way, but I worry that they will be drowned out by the ones who just want to fight the usual partisan battle.

[elengil]

This is exactly what I am talking about! If you think that zero pro-Trump voters can be persuaded then you aren't capable of making an argument that will sway some of them. You have defeated yourself.

I was pointing out your argument wasn't any better than what you were arguing against. Saying one side is incapable of making arguments to sway the other is no better than saying one side is incapable of being swayed by arguments.

Some people will hold opinions that will not be swayed by any amount of fact or rationale. The only real question is whether this represents the minority of any particular group of people or not. Therefore there will be some that will be incapable of being swayed and that is not on the people making the arguments or presenting the facts.

There will be some who will be incapable of formulating rational arguments for their case, and in such cases it is then reasonable that many people will not be swayed by those arguments. But in the same vein as above, there will be those who will be swayed when the argument for or against a thing aligns with the belief they already hold.

There will be some who will put forth reasonable and rational arguments for/against a particular stance, and those who either will be or won't be swayed by those arguments, and those who will never be swayed by those arguments. But simply pointing this out in no way indicates who is the one making the rational argument, who is the one being swayed, who is the one refusing to be swayed, and who is not making a rational argument to begin with - because who you ascribe to these categories already depends largely on where you fall in relation to what you already believe.

So simply saying that one side 'is incapable' of making an argument is as biased as saying one side is incapable of being swayed.

[River]

Faramond, to your point about swaying senators, there are some senators like Cory Gardner who will not win re-election if they do not win independents (there is no path to victory for any candidate of any party in a statewide election around here that excludes independents). So there are some who would do well to watch where such voters are leaning. And there are others who might just get tired enough of Trump's "Article II says I can do whatever I want!" routine that they'll risk losing their jobs.

As for the Trump supporters, maybe some will eventually recognize he's neither the hero they want or need. The trade war sure isn't doing the agricultural sector any favors. I'm not sure it's bringing much in terms of manufacturing back to the US either. Maybe they'll wake up and realize that, in addition to "those people who deserve it", they are hurting too. But then again, maybe not. A lot of the divides within our society get stoked and nurtured precisely to keep everyone from recognizing their common pain and joining up to do something about it. Until then, we're stuck with a president who acts out fantasy sex between two of his ex-employees at a campaign rally.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, I'm curious whether there is any particular information that might come out in the investigation that you think might be persuasive to supporters of the president?

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Faramond]

This is exactly what I am talking about! If you think that zero pro-Trump voters can be persuaded then you aren't capable of making an argument that will sway some of them. You have defeated yourself.

I was pointing out your argument wasn't any better than what you were arguing against. Saying one side is incapable of making arguments to sway the other is no better than saying one side is incapable of being swayed by arguments.

But I didn't say that. Not even close! You fixate on one sentence and misinterpret it!

So simply saying that one side 'is incapable' of making an argument is as biased as saying one side is incapable of being swayed.

If only I had said what you think I said, then you would have defeated me. Instead -- you have defeated yourself.

But -- I wonder how many anti-Trump people are even capable of this? This is what I said.

This does not imply that none are capable of it, or that those that seem incapable of it now will always be incapable of it. It just reflects my observation that too many are treating impeachment and removal as the usual political battle. To be successful, it had to be something different.

I would say something very similar about pro-Trump people, but the way. I wonder how many pro-Trump people are capable of stepping back and thinking about what is best for the country instead of just what is best for Trump and their own careers as glorified hangers-on? I would also attach a lot more blame to pro-Trump people in this whole mess. But by and large I'm not talking to pro-Trump people here.

[Faramond]

Faramond, I'm curious whether there is any particular information that might come out in the investigation that you think might be persuasive to supporters of the president?

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

I need to emphasize that there are many supporters who will never abandon him. That is clear.

I don't know that I would be very good at predicting what could persuade people. Maybe there really is nothing that could persuade enough of them -- but I really hope not.

I think evidence -- testimony, unassailable transcripts, a recording ( this would be ideal ) that made it impossible to deny a corrupt quid pro quo would be good.

Look, Trump is so corrupt, down to his vision of what the Presidency is, that there is probably a lot of impeachable stuff out there. Maybe some more of it will come to light in this investigation.

[yovargas]

I'm not sure what kind of argument we're even talking about. The quid pro quo request happened, and he essentially admitted to it himself. So given that by his own admission we already know he is guilty of doing what he is accused of, what other argument is there possibly to make? If that's not enough, what possibly could be? Do we need a recording of him literally saying "I'm going to commit a crime now"??

[River]

His die-hard supporters would probably shrug a statement like that off as a joke, yov.

[elengil]

If only I had said what you think I said, then you would have defeated me. Instead -- you have defeated yourself.

I didn't 'defeat myself'. I pointed out that type of argument could be used to cut both ways. If you feel I misunderstood your statement, then clarify it, don't just tell me you didn't say it.

[yovargas]

I have no idea what you two are arguing about.

[Cerin]

Who is the audience that needs to be convinced for Trump to be removed from office?

The reductive answer is 20 or so Republican senators, but what I really want to know is who needs to be convinced that would put enough pressure to sway those Republican senators to vote for removal?

The answer, surely, must in the end be that convincing Republican voters is essential to removal of Trump.

I've heard that approval of Trump among Republican voters hovers around 90% (sorry, no reference). In view of that, Republican lawmakers might see removal of Trump as too great a threat to the future fortunes of the party to even consider it. Because for all the disgust at Trump that I believe exists within the party elite, I think most lawmakers realize he is an aberration and that we will not see his like again. They therefore believe they will be getting their party back if they can just be patient for a while. So I (in a wishy-washy sort of way) disagree with you -- I think there may not be enough Republican senators to vote for removal even if you could find a mass of Republican voters to try and pressure them (which I think is itself very doubtful).

As a practical matter those who want to remove Trump would probably do well to make arguments that will sway these voters. But -- I wonder how many anti-Trump people are even capable of this?

I think before an anti-Trump person could attempt to make an argument that would sway these voters, they would first have to try to understand Trump-supporters' support of Trump. In order to try to understand Trump supporters' support of Trump, an anti-Trump person would first have to learn to regard Trump supporters as sound human beings. I don't see an indication of that kind of paradigm shift taking place (although someone more out and about in the world and virtual world could assess better than myself). My answer to your question, then (how many anti-Trump people are capable of this), is, very few, if any.

[Faramond]

I really think it was a mistake for me to post here given the massive resistance and insistence that I meant something I clearly didn't mean.