Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Impeachment Poll- Evidence vs. Politics (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Murph
- Start date
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
As one of the opinion that motivating the base is more important than trying to convince a few "up for grabs" voters I think the politics support voting for impeachment. The only downside is it possibly being too soon. The evidence certainly supports an indictment as Trump is clearly guilty of doing the things he is accused of doing. Whether it supports a conviction (i.e. removal) I guess reasonable people can hold different opinions on whether or not what he did was "innocent enough" or "exactly the kind of corruption our founding father's feared" to be removed, though I'd guess that 99 Senators will be voting on entirely political motivations (with one being absent 
).
).
Bogeys
Footballguy
As I said in a different thread, I am a registered independent who has only voted 3rd party or R for national office. In 2020 I will be voting for any tomato can put up by the D's, knowing that I will disagree with a lot of the policy but we just can't allow the complete abdication of the rule of law represented by Trump.
So at least in my case, it was politically wise of the D's to pursue it.
So at least in my case, it was politically wise of the D's to pursue it.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Voted 'undecided on the evidence; unwise for Democrats'. I'm not really torn on whether the evidence supports their narrow indictment of Trump- that he would use $400M to get something that benefited himself personally out of Ukraine. I don't really care about whether it incriminates Biden, because Biden helped overthrow Ukraine and then his son got a cush job- the previous administration was not a bunch of angels in Ukraine.
I'm not really interested in the handwringing over Ukraine getting a bunch of military hardware to further militarize the dynamic between them and a nuclear power. I don't think Democrats really understand how hawkish and dangerous the arguments they're adopting to malign Trump here are. It's strikingly similar to Russiagate in that regard, where they blasted Trump for not being enough of a neocon Russia hawk for them. This Moscow Mitch stuff too, Christ they look like 1953 Republicans worshipping the security state. I miss the days when liberals were skeptical of the intelligence/war complex.
But the main reason I reject their line of inquiry is because it avoids all of Trump's worst crimes- support for Saudi war crimes in Yemen, support for the apartheid, genocidal state in Israel, his continued caging and dehumanization of immigrants, his sanctions regimes in Venezuela and Iran and Syria that have killed tens and tens of thousands of people, his support for government overthrows in Latin America that have killed thousands more. The emoluments clause is a slam dunk too. It seems like they don't want to go there because they don't want their own constituents to think about this stuff when it's their guy's turn to do a bunch of bad #### in Washington. It's so transparent and toothless- these people wouldn't dream of challenging the real power structures in Washington.
I think it's politically unwise, it's an extremely flimsy line of attack the average American won't care about, and it will further vindicate Trump's anti-establishment veneer (as he caves to the foreign policy establishment over and over again in reality). This will help Trump.
I'm not really interested in the handwringing over Ukraine getting a bunch of military hardware to further militarize the dynamic between them and a nuclear power. I don't think Democrats really understand how hawkish and dangerous the arguments they're adopting to malign Trump here are. It's strikingly similar to Russiagate in that regard, where they blasted Trump for not being enough of a neocon Russia hawk for them. This Moscow Mitch stuff too, Christ they look like 1953 Republicans worshipping the security state. I miss the days when liberals were skeptical of the intelligence/war complex.
But the main reason I reject their line of inquiry is because it avoids all of Trump's worst crimes- support for Saudi war crimes in Yemen, support for the apartheid, genocidal state in Israel, his continued caging and dehumanization of immigrants, his sanctions regimes in Venezuela and Iran and Syria that have killed tens and tens of thousands of people, his support for government overthrows in Latin America that have killed thousands more. The emoluments clause is a slam dunk too. It seems like they don't want to go there because they don't want their own constituents to think about this stuff when it's their guy's turn to do a bunch of bad #### in Washington. It's so transparent and toothless- these people wouldn't dream of challenging the real power structures in Washington.
I think it's politically unwise, it's an extremely flimsy line of attack the average American won't care about, and it will further vindicate Trump's anti-establishment veneer (as he caves to the foreign policy establishment over and over again in reality). This will help Trump.
I agree with all of this, but these are separate questions from whether making military aid to Ukraine conditional on investigating a political opponent is an unconstitutional abuse of power.
skol asylum
Footballguy
Not sure how bribery, supported by multiple witnesses and specifically called out in the Constitution as a reason for impeachment, is a flimsy line of attack.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Agree with much of this (not all); particularly agree it is good for Trump and bad for Dem’s.
Question for you: do you think it was bad that Ness prosecuted Al Capone for tax evasion?
ren hoek
Footballguy
Has Trump made clear that it was about investigating the Bidens specifically, or was it limited to mentions of Burisma Holdings? I've not really followed along.
From the transcript (or whatever we're calling it) he asked Zelenskyy to look into Biden interfering with the prosecutor. I haven't really followed the testimony at the hearings, that alone seems like enough for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek
Footballguy
I guess it just strikes me as an excuse for a different ruling faction to seize power in Washington, not about restoring order to the White House. The question of constitutionality on this narrow line of inquiry doesn't carry as much weight for me as the ramifications of removing a president from office over it. If we were talking about war crimes or the death and destruction he has caused abroad it'd be a different story. I don't doubt that it's unconstitutional, I just find this to be an extremely milquetoast line of attack.
In a realpolitik sense, I view President Pence as worse than Trump, and I view both Democratic/Republican establishments as worse than Trump. Because they support him on the most horrible things he does- it's not until he talks about (not even actually does it, just talks about) ending wars in the middle east, or taking steps toward the bold move of peace on the Korean peninsula- Trump gets ripped hard for going against the foreign policy consensus on these things. Their problem with him is that he doesn't always share their exceptionalist view, that he is not a good ambassador for their imperial brand, not the rule of law or constitutionality or the fall of the republic or whatever they're pretending at. If they did, they would have impeached Bush and Obama. This article sums it all up very well: https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/trump-impeachment-not-excited/Content?oid=74501551
When Trump is gone, and they get another well-spoken suit in there, it'll be business as usual, and everyone can go back to sleep again as 97% of Trump's actual policies remain. That's my problem with this- it won't fundamentally change anything about Washington. Just please the sensibilities of the failed system that gave us Trump in the first place.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
If Dems win big next year, I'm gonna have a few words here with the fellas always telling me about the terrible political mistakes they are making now.
Fair enough. I think the way the evidence has been presented to the American people has not been entirely above board. But it doesn't change the fundamental facts of the case. Hence why I wanted to see the evidence vs. political split in the poll.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Setting aside that I don't believe in taxation. I think Capone was an argument against prohibition more than anything else- but I guess he did kill a bunch of people so it was good on net. If the inquiry were to expand to US war crimes in Yemen for example, I would be a lot more open to it. The implication with Capone is that if he hadn't dodged his taxes, he would have been fine.
Trump should be in the Hague right now, being tried for crimes against humanity. Dems won't go there because they don't want real accountability.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
When the news first broke about this, one of the pros to impeachment for Democrats was they thought this would be a quick, easy scandal for the public to understand.
They were wrong about this. It takes an extraordinary effort to be able decipher the facts and the truth from the noise and the spin. With a lack of trust in the media, it's even harder. It's pretty clear to me now that Democrats lost this battle.
(The 2020 election war ain't over though. It's barely just begun.)
They were wrong about this. It takes an extraordinary effort to be able decipher the facts and the truth from the noise and the spin. With a lack of trust in the media, it's even harder. It's pretty clear to me now that Democrats lost this battle.
(The 2020 election war ain't over though. It's barely just begun.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Easy way to tell truth from spin: if it sounds like Trump said or tweeted it, or if it otherwise sounds illogical, it's spin.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
A lot of politicians are involved in shady dealings, true enough, but that's not the point here. The point is if Trump did enough to warrant impeachment. I believe he did.
That one guy
Footballguy
Honest question: do you view Trump as being not business as usual? Applying my interpretation of your political holdings here, but Trump after 3.5 years of evidence seems very establishment driven only he’s not as skilled at discretion* as other more seasoned politicians are
*some might argue he’s not actually lacking in discretion, his support from the establishment just hasn’t forced him to exercise any
ren hoek
Footballguy
In a sense. It's very complicated but I think Trump bucks orthodoxy in a way that isn't always bad. For example, the meet with Kim I thought was a big step in the right direction. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex doesn't want wars to ever end, so our corporate-bought media painted this as a huge betrayal of our values (despite our friendly relationship with Saudi dictators for 70 years) and "photo op". It was really the sort of bold policy that Barack Obama ran on in 2007- meeting with controversial heads of state with no preconditions. Koreans approved of the summits overwhelmingly. But here in the United States, it was treated like an international humiliation. That's how bad our news cycle is.
I really don't care for Trump, but the oligarch media class and security state are a lot more insidious than he is. They push him to be worse on foreign policy. Because they're actually smart and good at deception. Trump has a weird polarizing effect that brings out the worst in these horrible people, and I think it's very enlightening to see it laid out so clearly. I would prefer another 4 years of that than just going back to the establishment "normal".
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
What shows me how wrong Democrats almost always are is that they didn't keep an even strain once they decided on impeachment. All through the Mueller investigation, even before it was known that the Special Counsel wasn't "going after" the President, the great majority of Democrats (altho often out-shouted by those w Trump Psychosis) appeared to be behind pursuing political and not legal solutions to deposing its national embarrassment. When POTUS doubled down on involving foreign govts in national politics, just days after the furor caused by the Stephanopoulos interview, however, those same Dems agreed "politics be damned, this guy's gotta be stopped before he hands any more of the country away to foreign interests".
Once again, though, Democrats were not prepared to be the loudest voice in the room, even when shouting for America over party, and the reactionary publicity machine has already turned the tables and is very close to painting them into a corner as the real hounders, which is laughable. They should kinda just shut up now, find some sort of House-only censure by which to drop a matter they weren't going to win anyway.
Once again, though, Democrats were not prepared to be the loudest voice in the room, even when shouting for America over party, and the reactionary publicity machine has already turned the tables and is very close to painting them into a corner as the real hounders, which is laughable. They should kinda just shut up now, find some sort of House-only censure by which to drop a matter they weren't going to win anyway.
Similar threads
