Impeachment

[Frelga]

As the NPR said, there is value in having the "firestarters" in the party as well as experience and cautious leaders like Pelosi. It makes for better balance.

I really wish the Democrats would find their guts and start being a party of something other than "not Republicans".

[elengil]

As the NPR said, there is value in having the "firestarters" in the party as well as experience and cautious leaders like Pelosi. It makes for better balance.

I really wish the Democrats would find their guts and start being a party of something other than "not Republicans".

I don't think that's a terribly fair assessment. Democrats are trying to get social benefits to more people, invest in greener energy sources, stop the unbridled wealth grab of corporations and the "1%", ensure medical *access* for everyone, get better immigration policies that actually give paths to residency and citizenship, work with our allies...

While those policies may in fact all be 'not Republican' I am hard pressed to say that 'not Republican' is a good definition of their platform.

[RoseMorninStar]

There is a difference in thought process/world view between those who vote Republican vs. Democrat. This difference has been confirmed by neurological experiments in the various ways people make decisions. Those who vote Republican tend to have a greater 'fight or flight' fear response, Democrats tend to have more social and self-awareness and emotional processing. Republicans tend to be more cohesive and have a narrower focus in their views and goals making it easier to corral a 'base' and pursue an agenda. They are less likely to question authoritarian/traditional narratives especially when fear is put in the mix (ie.. they are less likely to question '...... is a threat to your American way of life' whether the statement is true or not). Democrats tend to have a much broader spectrum of concerns (part of their general broader world view) which makes it more difficult to form as tight a coalition/united front, a difficulty in narrowing the focus.

Generally speaking, I think these two thought processes compliment one another or are at least MEANT to compliment one another.. yin/yang. A balance. Short sighted vs. a longer view. Caution/tradition vs. trying something new/progression. Both have merit but are better when utilized in tandem. Things can get thrown in the mix to throw that off and I think that is where we find ourselves now. So much is happening. There are those who are very good at exploiting these differences and they use propaganda and wedge issues to divide and conquer. Social media can so easily be used as a tool of misinformation. We have to get better at teaching logic and reasoning so people can better sift through the deluge of crap that assaults us every day. This is something I've read eastern European countries, like Finland, have been doing for quite some time.

[River]

For all the talk of "the Squad,"

These congresswomen changed the course of history by becoming unlikely leaders on impeachment

From the article, emphasis mine:

"I don't care who has the headlines," Spanberger responded. "I care about the legislation that we prioritize and I don't think any of us want to be the loudest voice in the room. I just want to be one of the most effective."

Always watch out for the quiet ones.

ETA: Something interesting that occurred to me this morning. When Clinton was getting investigated and impeached, he hired a crack team of lawyers. One of these lawyers went on to represent Michael Cohen. Another was Emmett Flood, who was involved with assisting the White House with the Russia investigation. Flood left after the report was released. Now, I realize that things moved blindingly fast this week, but it seems like it would be time for the Trump team to be shopping for an impeachment specialist and yet nothing's been reported. Have they just not got there yet? Or is no one taking the case?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The only thing that I have heard is that Trump wants Corey Lewandowski, the former campaign head who was so combative in his recent testimony to lead the impeachment team but that 'top White House officials' don't want him.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics ... index.html

I haven't heard anything about any attorneys but I would not be surprised if they brought back Flood.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

But all he needs is William Barr.

Someone is going to get killed if Trump keeps up his violent threats and intimidation. I believe it's likely to get worse. Amateur pro-Trump ‘sleuths’ scramble to unmask whistleblower: ‘Your president has asked for your help’

[Inanna]

Rose, do you have a cite for the democrat vs republican brain study?

[RoseMorninStar]

Rose, do you have a cite for the democrat vs republican brain study?

I was going to link a source in my initial post, but my comment was paraphrased from a combination of several articles (some that I read quite some time ago).

Here is a link to a few, but there are tons of articles on the topic on the web:
BusinessInsider: Differences between conservatives and liberals
That article also has a link to a study.

Psychology Today; Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

The Science Explorer: Neuroscience Reveals the Differences Between Republican and Democrat Brains

ABC News: Political views reflected in Brain Structure

The Journal of Neuropsychiatry: A Neurology of the Conservative-Liberal Dimension of Political Ideology

Study: Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But all he needs is William Barr.

Actually, all he really needs is Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, et al.



Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[Sunsilver]

Gee, Donny, are you feeling the heat?
Hoping this will distract people?

I don't believe for one minute the timing is coincidental!

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... flk02Vin94

[Inanna]

Rose, I didn’t read the popular news summaries but I read the journal articles. It would be more accurate to say “That they find some minor correlations, which might have some indications, of some brain patterns indicating some psychological processes related to political associations, but given the complexity of the brain and our current understanding of it, it is very very difficult to say whether this is in any manner conclusive”.

[RoseMorninStar]

Inanna, that's a bit clinical for a layperson. Something that stood out to me was this from The Science Explorer:

Interestingly, the opposite groups didn’t differ in the risks they took, but there were striking differences in the brain activities that lit up during the decision-making process. The Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with emotional processing as well as social and self-awareness, while the Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region that plays a role in the body’s fight-or-flight system.

This data provides evidence that Democrats and Republicans use different cognitive processes when they think about risk. In fact, the researchers say that the brain activity in these two regions alone could predict whether a person is a Democrat or a Republican with 82.9 percent accuracy — more accurate than using a model based on the political affiliations of an individual’s parents, which is only accurate about 69.5 percent of the time.

Voronwë, true. Has Mitch said anything yet? The longer he is silent.. well, that's not good for Trump.

Sunny, I'd say we've seen 1.) Deny 2.) Attack 3.) Play the Victim and now we are at 4.) Diversion.

[River]

McConnell's signaled that if the House impeaches the Senate will hold a trial. Which shouldn't be significant, but this is the guy who made up an excuse not to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee, so it's not like he takes a hard line regarding the Senate's constitutional responsibilities.

[RoseMorninStar]

McConnell's signaled that if the House impeaches the Senate will hold a trial. Which shouldn't be significant, but this is the guy who made up an excuse not to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee, so it's not like he takes a hard line regarding the Senate's constitutional responsibilities.

I found this article at LawFare, which I thought explains it rather well (and echos your concerns): Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?"

[Sunsilver]

Sunny, I'd say we've seen 1.) Deny 2.) Attack 3.) Play the Victim and now we are at 4.) Diversion.

Fairly typical Trump pattern, too!

[Frelga]

I continue to be puzzled by the support of Trump from the Republican congresspersons. They could get President Pence, with the same Back to the 1950s policies but minus all the international incident, and plus the base angry enough to maybe even get Pence elected. Where's the downside?

[RoseMorninStar]

But all he needs is William Barr.

Actually, all he really needs is Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, et al.

From The Atlantic:

3. Recognize that the opponent is McConnell. Trump is the target of impeachment, but the strategic locus of the impeachment process is Trump’s enabler and defender in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. It is McConnell who will set the rules of the trial, McConnell who will determine how long it lasts and which witnesses are heard. McConnell presumably knows better than anybody how guilty Trump is—and for that very reason will work harder than anyone to protect Trump. The first task in a successful process is to shrink McConnell’s options for abusive behavior. That means prying just enough Republican senators loose from McConnell’s grip to create a bloc for fair rules.

I found this article rather chilling: Why Republicans Aren't Turning On Trump

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The plot thickens (and note where this report first originates from):

Trump-Supporting Lawyers diGenova and Toensing Teamed Up With Giuliani to Dig Up Ukraine Dirt on Biden: Report

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[elengil]

I continue to be puzzled by the support of Trump from the Republican congresspersons. They could get President Pence, with the same Back to the 1950s policies but minus all the international incident, and plus the base angry enough to maybe even get Pence elected. Where's the downside?

Principle.
If they admit that there is anything at all to impeach Trump for they have to admit that 'one of their own' is impeachable, which seems to go against the very core of their principles.

I am actually unable to put into words exactly how I see this, but basically if you admit to a crack in the armor it's lethal. You can't let them know there is anything at all that you are answerable for.

[RoseMorninStar]

I've always thought Toensing and diGenova were sketchy, in addition to he who hired them. And Giuliani, well, he's plain wacko.

I continue to be puzzled by the support of Trump from the Republican congresspersons. They could get President Pence, with the same Back to the 1950s policies but minus all the international incident, and plus the base angry enough to maybe even get Pence elected. Where's the downside?

Principle.
If they admit that there is anything at all to impeach Trump for they have to admit that 'one of their own' is impeachable, which seems to go against the very core of their principles.

I am actually unable to put into words exactly how I see this, but basically if you admit to a crack in the armor it's lethal. You can't let them know there is anything at all that you are answerable for.

I agree with elengil, should they have to come to terms with the reality 'one of their own' being impeached, there is a taint that probably can't transcend the denial they've had to employ with Trump.

I'll add that there is a certain narcissistic cult of personality that some are drawn to and have a hard time breaking from/seeing them for what they are. Some might call this charisma (which many famous/infamous people have), the ability to attract and mesmerize and in the eyes of some, do no wrong. Trump is such a person. While Pence may have what some say they want in theory, he lacks that quality.