The Argument Against Impeachment?

[kennetha]

So the argument against beginning impeachment proceedings against Trump is ....

Drum 🥁 roll ...

It would make Trump’s supporters mad ...

Whether impeachment culminates in Trump’s removal

or fails to do so ... as is more likely...

Democrats dare not piss off Trump’s legions of supporters.

Do I have that right?

[NanceGreggs]

1. No, actually you don't have that right. n/t

[kennetha]

9. So what's the true argument against impeachment hearings?

[quickesst]

2. I'm not going to argue the case for or against impeachment....

...... But there's one thing I do know.

"It would make Trump’s supporters mad ... "
And....
"Democrats dare not piss off Trump’s legions of supporters."

..... Is saying the same damn thing twice!

[kennetha]

11. Not so

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 11:30 AM - Edit history (2)

One is factual claim the other is a normative claim.

I assume you know the difference.


The first asserts the bare fact that it will piss off Trump supporters.


That doesn’t settle whether we ought or ought not or in this case whether we “dare or dare not” take a step that would piss Trump supporters off.


If we dare do it despite the fact, that makes us brave or cowardly, depending on what you make of the wisdom of doing it.

If we dare not do because of the fact, same thing in reverse.

Understand the difference now?

[quickesst]

20. The first suggests a fear of doing so

The second also suggests trepidation or a fear of doing so. They are the same. None the less, neither is true. It would be the least worrisome of reasons so as not to even register. Your second reason is valid simply because failure of impeachment could result in strengthening Trump's base. A successful impeachment could also produce the same result.

" I assume you 'NO' the difference."
That would be a yes.

[Girard442]

3. Let's not do the thing that might keep the Titanic afloat...

...all the commotion would disturb the passengers and undermine their confidence in the ship and the White Star Line.

[uponit7771]

4. YES !! That's been proffered in a thread or two but mostly its ...

1. The False equivalency of what happened after Clinton (dems lost house, senate and presidency after Clinton impeachment)
2. Red Don wont be removed anyway why start (The consummate light of day will gimp Red Don and authority of impeachment will make it harder for KGOP to stonewall)
3. Don't have democratic support in the 80s or 90s yet (this one is decent logic and true)
4. It's a distraction from policies (dems can walk and chew gum at the same time)
5. Red Don will crow if he's not removed - Red Don is crowing now, lying about being exonerated so Red Don crowing isn't a sound reason
6. Democrats Dare not piss off Trump voters (which didn't matter in 2016 without Russia's help)

[tymorial]

5. Talk about a reductionist argument.

No offense but it's way more complicated than that.

[empedocles]

6. Pol'tics can be especially complicated.

[Rambling Man]

10. A VERY complicated calculation, indeed:

"My reelection fund is at x and I need it at y." Solve for y.

[ehrnst]

22. Who in particular? (nt)

[ehrnst]

23. No comment? (nt)

[kennetha]

8. Try explaining it in a way that my simplistic reductionist brain can grasp!

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. I'll give it a go:

1: It's generally accepted that Repub senators won't vote to convict him, so you might say starting the impeachment process is just so there can be a large public discussion on how awful Trump is
2: This could discourage some potential Democratic supporters who'd say "why did you waste your time with a process you always knew wouldn't work? I want a government and legislature that produces solutions, not a spectacle."
3: It could also get some 2016 Trump voters who might leave him in 2020 (for having been an idiot in office) to say "they're trying to remove the guy I voted for! They're trying to annul my vote! I'll show them - I'll vote for him again!"

Against that, we can balance whether forcing Republican senators up for re-election to say "I support Trump" will hurt their own vote. And whether not impeaching sets an awful precedent.

[kennetha]

14. That argument is even dumber than the original

It presumes that there are potential DEMOCRATiC voters who will be driven to Trump once his utter lawlessness, depravity, and near treason are put fully on display.

Cause all they care about is the equivalent of making the trains run on time.

And the part about the Trump voters is just repeating the so called reductive argument that you claimed was too simple.

Call me unimpressed!

Care to try again?

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. No. It doesn't presume that at all. Read it again.

It says some people may not vote Democratic. That doesn't mean they will vote Republican. Or that people who might have voted for Trump last time might not this time - but that doesn't mean they will vote Democratic. A lot of people don't vote in every election. I had hoped you realised that already.

I'd also hoped that you realised if something is "too simple", then something needs to be added to it. Not that it is wrong.

I'm not convinced there's much point in continuing this with you. Talking about "the trains run on time" is a cliche meant to imply other people are tempted to support fascists. It's a slimy attempt at rhetoric.

[tymorial]

17. they arent going to cede.

Many of the people who want to impeach are not considering the long game. This isn't a double jump to a king me in checkers. This is chess.

[kennetha]

18. See if I've got you straight..,

You think that putting Trump on trial and attempt to hold him accountable will backfire and persuade persuadable independents to reward Trump for cooperating with the Russians and obstructing justice and punish democrats for holding him accountable and protecting the rule of law?

And you think, for some reason, that wouldn’t amount to a version of “but Trump will make the trains run on time and you Democrats won’t”

Hence we should not even try to hold Trump accountable?

Is that about it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. No, you haven't got it straight

and I don't think you're really trying.

[tymorial]

16. We have 18 months to the election,Trump is not going to be removed

There are no guarantees that we will defeat Trump (even though we WILL try like hell). Given this we must maintain the house because taking over the Senate may be more difficult than defeating him in the general.

I believe Trump is quite guilty but impeaching him guarantees no assurance of ultimate victory. The Senate will not remove him and Trump will use that as evidence of a failed coup. We have house representatives whose reelection is not guaranteed and the Republicans are going to attack hard to get it back.

Unless the political winds change, we should focus on holding onto the house and defeating him in the general equally.

Lastly even if we did move forward with impeachment there is no guarantee that result will happen. Some Democrats may not vote, especially those in red states.

The house MUST be maintained.

[kennetha]

19. Trump is so scary!

Quaking in my boots.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/17/trump-is-betting-that-electoral-college-courts-will-save-him/

Why he could lose the popular vote by 10,000,000 this time around and still win the electoral college.

Be afraid Democrats, be very afraid.

[Maxheader]

12. I dunno, so I googled it...

https://www.google.com/search?ei=xxS7XK_OGsjetQWboK3QBA&q=not+removing+a+cancer+is+important&oq=not+removing+a+cancer+is+important&gs_l=psy-ab.3...52623.53518..54795...0.0..0.677.1369.0j1j2j5-1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.N0PVVeHHkxM