Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[Subduction Zone]

I guess we have different definitions of “cover up.”

What can I say but "TDS" symptom.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I guess we have different definitions of “cover up.”

I like the definition in the dictionary. Which definition were you thinking of?

Definition of cover-up

1a: a device or stratagem for masking or concealing

1b: a usually concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public​

Source: Definition of COVER-UP

At the very least, in fairness, I think you have to acknowledge that the vote to not hear witnesses was *not* a vote that the charges brought against Trump were insufficient to impeach. Not according to at least two Senators who have released statements on their rationale.

Why then, if it was not determined that the charges are not impeachable (as you claimed), was a vote taken to not hear relevant witnesses under oath? I refer you to the two definitions of “cover up”, above.

 

[England my lionheart]

Off topic but a little humour in the thread,after Superbowl Trump tweeted:

"Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game, and a fantastic comeback, under immense pressure," Trump wrote in the since-deleted tweet. "You represented the Great State of Kansas and, in fact, the entire USA, so very well. Our Country is PROUD OF YOU!"

He deleted this and tweeted with Missouri.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hah. I’m beginning to form an impression that you will not acknowledge any criticism of the Trump Party....

You want me to acknowledge that criticism of the Republican Party exists?
Sure, I hereby acknowledge that. I never thought you needed such validation.
Once again, our fundamental differences is that I criticize policy, while you
criticize people, & take arguments so personally.

I have a fundie friend who once told me that the cromulence (not his word)
of an argument depended not upon the reasoning & evidence, but rather
upon the person arguing. Being right (having the truth) stems from having
spiritual insight. So his arguments tended towards delegitimizing the other
person (often me). You don't want to remind me of him.

 

[Revoltingest]

And people on the progressive side are offended when I point out that Trump has never won an election in his whole life.

They'll flip hypocritically between "Trump was elected", and "We don't elect Presidents. That democracy stuff is the tyranny of the majority!"
Tom

Where do you get this stuff? You don't cite anyone's posts.
(I see you regularly invent quotes attributed to me.)
While you dislike the Electoral College, it is still our system,
& has been for centuries. It cannot be waved away when
one dislikes the result.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You want me to acknowledge that criticism of the Republican Party exists?
Sure, I hereby acknowledge that. I never thought you needed such validation.
Once again, our fundamental differences is that I criticize policy, while you
criticize people, & take arguments so personally.

I have a fundie friend who once told me that the cromulence (not his word)
of an argument depended not upon the reasoning & evidence, but rather
upon the person arguing. Being right (having the truth) stems from having
spiritual insight. So his arguments tended towards delegitimizing the other
person (often me). You don't want to remind me of him.

I suggest you review your posts #213 and 224. I posted relevant facts / logic to support the criticism I was making of specific actions the Trump Party has taken (Trump obstructing, the Senate condoning). For example, I cited the historical example of how George Washington thought about the gravity of an information request from Congress in the context of an impeachment inquiry.

You ignored all that. Instead, you brought up (in post #224) the subject of the biases / motivations behind the person posting. Which is fine, I don’t mind if you do that. I am going to call it out, however.

 

[columbus]

Where do you get this stuff? You don't cite anyone's posts.
(I see you regularly invent quotes attributed to me.)
While you dislike the Electoral College, it is still our system,
& has been for centuries. It cannot be waved away when
one dislikes the result.

The EC was hotly debated back in 2016, as I'm sure you recall.
More than member referred to a democratically elected POTUS as "tyranny of the majority". I was certain you were one of them. My apologies if I'm misremembering.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I suggest you review your posts #213 and 224. I posted relevant facts / logic to support the criticism I was making of specific actions the Trump Party has taken (Trump obstructing, the Senate condoning). For example, I cited the historical example of how George Washington thought about the gravity of an information request from Congress in the context of an impeachment inquiry.

You ignored all that. Instead, you brought up (in post #224) the subject of the biases / motivations behind the person posting. Which is fine, I don’t mind if you do that. I am going to call it out, however.

I ignore a great many things which don't interest me.
This is not to deny their existence. I just don't care
about personal criticism the way you do.
Note that you often ignore my posts & threads about
issues, but I don't carp about that...I don't expect to
interest everyone.

 

[halbhh]

Not really. Trump's guilt has become even more apparent and the fact that over 70% of the nation wanted to hear from witnesses and the Republicans voted no screams "cover-up". This action will almost certainly harm the Republicans in the upcoming election. They made the error of supporting a corrupt President and they are likely to pay a heavy price for it.

This site doesn't have a "agree" button, so I clicked 'like', but really it's only because it's somewhat like 'agree'.

More light is better, for a nation, is another way of saying it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The EC was hotly debated back in 2016, as I'm sure you recall.
More than member referred to a democratically elected POTUS as "tyranny of the majority". I was certain you were one of them. My apologies if I'm misremembering.
Tom

Apology accepted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This site doesn't have a "agree" button, so I clicked 'like', but really it's only because it's somewhat like 'agree'.

More light is better, for a nation, is another way of saying it.

There is nothing wrong with that usage of the like button. Personally I mean agree more often than not when I use it.

 

[dianaiad]

We are moving into tyrany of the minority now. Half of the electoral votes are controlled by 18% of the population.

OK...your basis for that claim is...????

 

[dianaiad]

Clinton was guilty of banging a secretary.
He got impeached for lying about that under oath.

He was guilty of lying about that under oath. While he was assessed a huge fine for what happened with Paula, (sexual assault aka rape) he was DISBARRED for the lie. Which he admitted to and was found guilty of.

Trump is guilty of treason.

No he isn't. Even the articles of impeachment don't go to the extent of charging him with treason. You have your opinion, of course, but your opinion is not a legal finding.

For instance...how many people think that OJ Simpson was 'guilty of' killing his ex-wife? However, he was found not-guilty, and quite a few people still believe that he didn't do it. Your opinion is not a finding of fact.

But he's managed to obstruct investigation and avoid testimony under oath.

Not nearly as much as Hillary and Schiff have.

See? Opinions are not findings of fact, or verdicts.

It is hard to understand when so many people refer to the USA as a democracy, and Trump as being elected.
Tom

Simplicity of form. It's easier to say 'democracy' than 'representative republic,' and you only refer to TRUMP as not having been elected, when I'm quite certain you are fine with saying that Clinton and Obama were.

The same process got them all in the POTUS job.

 

[SoyLeche]

OK...your basis for that claim is...????

President getting 3M fewer votes.
1.5M fewer people represented by those blocking witnesses (not to mention them going against the will of 75% of the population...).
It's possible for the Senate to be controlled by 18% of the poulation, and for 7% of the population to block a supermajority.

The urban/rural population split is just going to get more urban and less rural, with the rural having a highly unrepresentative influence on the federal government. We aren't there quite yet, but it could easily happen in the next couple decades.

 

[Subduction Zone]

President getting 3M fewer votes.
1.5M fewer people represented by those blocking witnesses (not to mention them going against the will of 75% of the population...).
It's possible for the Senate to be controlled by 18% of the poulation, and for 7% of the population to block a supermajority.

The urban/rural population split is just going to get more urban and less rural, with the rural having a highly unrepresentative influence on the federal government. We aren't there quite yet, but it could easily happen in the next couple decades.

My cow has rights! She gets a say in the political process.

Seriously to change the Senate will take a Constitutional Amendment and I do not see that happening. But the electoral college can be effectively done away with without such a hopeless endeavor. The states that are over represented will almost certainly never give up their advantage. But enough states could be convinced to join the compact that will end the electoral college. There is not that much perceived loss in power by states that are marginally empowered.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, and no. It was also a compromise to the slave states. The "tyranny of the majority" has never been a thing. The main difference between the House and the Senate are the lengths of terms. The Senate is supposed to work on the long term. It is designed for a more cautious approach. With six year election one does not focus on items that may be a flash in the pan. The House is designed to solve problems more quickly. Either succeed or get out with only two years between elections. It is a very good idea when it works.

You think that the 'main difference' is the term length?

California has 53 representatives to Congress right now. 45 of them are Democrats.
California has 2 Senators. Both are Democrats.

Montana has one representative to Congress. A Republican
Montana has two Senators; one Republican, one Democrat.

I have given you the state with the most representatives to the House, and one of the states with the fewest. There can be no fewer representatives to the House than one.

The upshot here is this: without that 'difference,' the government would be utterly run by California, Florida and New York. Texas would fit in that top four somewhere, but frankly, with most states having fewer than 8 representatives, that would be, pretty much, that. California, with its 45 Democrats in the House, more than offsets the votes of seventeen states. Seventeen. If you add in New York and Florida, you have three states dictating the composition of the house for considerably over half the nation. AT LEAST 26 states.

But those 26 states each have two Senators, and California, Florida and New York each have two Senators. So the 'tyranny of the majority' that is so ruthlessly administered in the HOUSE by these coastal, populace rich states, can't entirely lord it over the rest of the nation, much as they try to...as witnessed by this recent set of shenanigans.

 

[SoyLeche]

My cow has rights! She gets a say in the political process.

Seriously to change the Senate will take a Constitutional Amendment and I do not see that happening. But the electoral college can be effectively done away with without such a hopeless endeavor. The states that are over represented will almost certainly never give up their advantage. But enough states could be convinced to join the compact that will end the electoral college. There is not that much perceived loss in power by states that are marginally empowered.

I agree with all of this.

I'd personally like to see several states be consolidated. Make a Montoming and a Verhampshire. Put West Virginia back with regular Virginia where it belongs. Stuff like that.

 

[dianaiad]

President getting 3M fewer votes.
1.5M fewer people represented by those blocking witnesses (not to mention them going against the will of 75% of the population...).
It's possible for the Senate to be controlled by 18% of the poulation, and for 7% of the population to block a supermajority.

The urban/rural population split is just going to get more urban and less rural, with the rural having a highly unrepresentative influence on the federal government. We aren't there quite yet, but it could easily happen in the next couple decades.

I'm sorry, but your above number fooling around with does not support your claim that the electoral college is controlled by 18% of the population.

 

[SoyLeche]

You think that the 'main difference' is the term length?

California has 53 representatives to Congress right now. 45 of them are Democrats.
California has 2 Senators. Both are Democrats.

Montana has one representative to Congress. A Republican
Montana has two Senators; one Republican, one Democrat.

I have given you the state with the most representatives to the House, and one of the states with the fewest. There can be no fewer representatives to the House than one.

The upshot here is this: without that 'difference,' the government would be utterly run by California, Florida and New York. Texas would fit in that top four somewhere, but frankly, with most states having fewer than 8 representatives, that would be, pretty much, that. California, with its 45 Democrats in the House, more than offsets the votes of seventeen states. Seventeen. If you add in New York and Florida, you have three states dictating the composition of the house for considerably over half the nation. AT LEAST 26 states.

But those 26 states each have two Senators, and California, Florida and New York each have two Senators. So the 'tyranny of the majority' that is so ruthlessly administered in the HOUSE by these coastal, populace rich states, can't entirely lord it over the rest of the nation, much as they try to...as witnessed by this recent set of shenanigans.

If all of the people are in California, Florida and New York, why shouldn't they have the majority of the say in what is going on?

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm sorry, but your above number fooling around with does not support your claim that the electoral college is controlled by 18% of the population.

I fixed that in a later post. That number is for the senate. For the EC it's 43%.