Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[dianaiad]

Yeah, I looked at the post. It doesn't clarify the "26% of the population controls 74% of the nation IN THE HOUSE" though.

Unless you mean they are underrepresented in land or cows or something like that.

That was a reply to the claim that the three states I mentioned only held 26% of the population, as if making that claim improved things.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

We appear to be having a profound miscommunication! What you ignored, wasn't personal criticism. It was criticism of actions taken by a political party. (For treating obstruction of Congress differently from how it's historically been treated; I cited the example of George Washington; etc., etc.) I am not sure how this can be interpreted as "personal criticism".

On the other hand, what you raised in post #224, was personal criticism. You said:

I'm beginning to form an impression that you
dislike Trump & any who don't oppose him.​

So, you ignored the criticism I made of a political party, and raised criticism of me.

I'm not complaining. I don't mind. But you may want to re-read how our discussion has progressed. Because you seem to have had a different discussion in your mind, than we actually had on-screen. Either that, or I am just missing something. Please let me know if that is the case.

Note that you often ignore my posts & threads about
issues, but I don't carp about that...I don't expect to
interest everyone.

Well, I wouldn't reply to your post, and then when you raise evidence / logic to support your argument, ignore all that, and instead raise criticism of you personally ... at least not intentionally. If I do that, feel free to call me out on it, when it happens. I welcome constructive criticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the people IN those states have rights, and there is a reason that the name of this country is "the United States of America."

Correct. The people have rights. They should not have more rights than other people, and that is what you have been advocating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

do you understand the difference between 'you' and 'y'all?"

Yes, I do. One is proper English and has a well defined meaning. The second one, not so much.

 

[SoyLeche]

I do understand it.
I also recognize that the purview of POTUS was extremely different 200 years ago.
The President wasn't expected to get involved in domestic issues much. The three biggest campaign issues in 2016, federal policy concerning income tax, healthcare, and immigration, didn't even exist when Jefferson was made President.
The president was appointed by state legislatures to represent them to foreign governments, primarily. But the real domestic legislation was at the state level and House of Representatives. The states were far more sovereign back then.

But that was then, and this is now.
Tom

Yeah - the Executive was easily the weakest branch in the Founder's minds. Things have changed in 250 years.

 

[SoyLeche]

That was a reply to the claim that the three states I mentioned only held 26% of the population, as if making that claim improved things.

Yeah, where did the rest of the quote (controls 74% of the nation IN THE HOUSE") come from though?

 

[SoyLeche]

CA, FL and NY have a total of 107 seats in the house. There are 435 seats in the house. So they control ~25% of the house, not the 50+% that you seem to be implying.

Unless you are saying something else that makes less sense.

 

[columbus]

Yeah - the Executive was easily the weakest branch in the Founder's minds. Things have changed in 250 years.

I don't think weak is quite the right word. "Limited" is more accurate.

At the time, when states were states and not provinces, state legislatures decided almost everything. House of representatives resolved issues between states. Senate was a check on hasty House decisions. President was almost last resort, SCOTUS was final arbiter.

But little above State government had much to do with the lives of ordinary folk. Mostly the federal government dealt with the doings of the wealthy elite.

But things have changed hugely since then. The federal government is a huge part of the daily lives of us regular folk. I think it's time that We the People elected POTUS, instead of the position being appointed by state(partisan) legislatures.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

I do understand it.
I also recognize that the purview of POTUS was extremely different 200 years ago.
The President wasn't expected to get involved in domestic issues much. The three biggest campaign issues in 2016, federal policy concerning income tax, healthcare, and immigration, didn't even exist when Jefferson was made President.
The president was appointed by state legislatures to represent them to foreign governments, primarily. But the real domestic legislation was at the state level and House of Representatives. The states were far more sovereign back then.

But that was then, and this is now.
Tom

Then we had that little speed bump known as "The War Between The States" that changed the complexion of the beast...

 

[Shad]

Thanks for the info.

It is from the Constitutional Convention.

A lot of the impeachment of Trump is based on the CC as it provides various definitions not present in the Constitution such as what is and is not considered a misdemeanor. This makes the case about spirit of the law versus letter of the law. GOP is going with letter thus the CC is not applicable. Dems are going with spirit thus CC is applicable.

 

[SoyLeche]

I don't think weak is quite the right word. "Limited" is more accurate.

At the time, when states were states and not provinces, state legislatures decided almost everything. House of representatives resolved issues between states. Senate was a check on hasty House decisions. President was almost last resort, SCOTUS was final arbiter.

But little above State government had much to do with the lives of ordinary folk. Mostly the federal government dealt with the doings of the wealthy elite.

But things have changed hugely since then. The federal government is a huge part of the daily lives of us regular folk. I think it's time that We the People elected POTUS, instead of the position being appointed by state(partisan) legislatures.
Tom

Yeah - it's almost like the 10th ammendment isn't even there anymore...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Impeachment was partisan, and a waste of time. But you are missing why. The reason is because one side was doing its job, acting as oversight and a check on the Executive, while the Trump Party has made a choice to acquiesce to the popular (within their party) bully who leads them.

But whether it was a waste of time (due to the Trump Party's stonewalling) or not, it was necessary. The alternative - to just let him get away with it without even subjecting him to impeachment - would have been unacceptable. The Democrats can't just sit back and not investigate when the President refuses to release lawfully appropriated aid - Congress controls the purse, not the Executive. And they can't just sit back and do nothing when the President refuses to cooperate with a Congressional investigation - particularly an impeachment investigation. Investigating the Executive, and impeaching the president, are two more key Constitutional powers of Congress - not Trump.

Finally, they can't sit back and let the President marshal the might of US foreign policy and taxpayer dollars, to support his own political campaign against a leading Democratic candidate. If Trump wanted Biden investigated for legitimate reasons, he should have used legitimate means (like his own Justice Dept.). If he wanted to investigate Biden for political purposes, that's fine too - but it should have been done using Trump campaign funds, not US foreign aid and not US diplomacy. The Democrats would have been foolish to allow that to go on unanswered.

As far as I know, we still don't have a single document from the White House simply explaining why he held up the aid - who made the decision, and when. WH counsel literally couldn't even answer that question in the Senate trial. The Trump Party doesn't want to know. That's not just partisan. That's walking away from the checks and balances of the Constitution.

Now, what would change this picture a bit, is if the Trump Party decides to censure the President or continue to pursue documents related to how and why our money was withheld. So, consequences - but not removal from office. I can respect that. I suspect they prefer to do nothing.

May I remind you that at least two (that we know of) leading Republican candidates for President in the last election cycle, came out and said publicly, that Trump needed to be impeached for this behavior (though perhaps not convicted, they said - a position that I respect). John Kasich and Carly Fiorina. I strongly suspect more would have agreed, simply on the merits of the case, if Trump wasn't so popular within their voting base.

By the way, Trump is charged with violating several laws under the umbrella of the articles of impeachment: obstruction of Congress, the Logan Act, the impoundment act, the whisleblower laws and FEC laws forbidding soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign government in connection with a political campaign. Trump has repeatedly flaunted such laws, this wasn't a one-off mistake .. he's going to keep doing this stuff. Impeachment may make him think twice next time, even if he was acquitted - or it may not - but doing nothing is not the right answer.

The right answer would have been for the Trump Party to man up, and stand up for what is right.

Uh huh.

"I am standing for the right, being firm and holding my principals.

YOU are being obstructive, stubborn and bowing to pressure from people who don't know their asses from their elbows."

Gotcha.

.........didn't read the rest of the post. Should I have?

Only if you would like to hear the evidence I have to support the claim I was making. I realize that dismissing unpleasant charges, without considering the evidence, is fashionable with the Trump Party these days.

If that shoe fits you ... by all means, wear it.

dianaiad, I note that you had nothing of substance in response to the relevant facts / reasoning that I cited.

I would be curious to to know, for example, if you maintain that the "partisan waste of time" was because Trump was impeached, or because of how his party responded to him being impeached. Specifically, what is your response to the fact that John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, and possibly Mitt Romney thought Trump should be impeached? (But not, perhaps, convicted and removed from office.) Does that not, in your mind, create space where reasonable, non-partisan minds could disagree on impeachment?

If I had to guess, I think John McCain would have voted for witnesses just as Mitt Romney did. Between McCain, Romney, Kasich and Fiorina you would have both of the past two GOP presidential nominees, plus two of the leading recent primary candidates, all supporting witnesses in an impeachment trial (though perhaps not - I hasten to add - conviction and removal from office).

It kind of begs the question, whether Senators like Graham and Cruz are protecting Trump because the charges against him are actually unwarranted, in their minds; or if they are simply protecting their party politically, regardless of the merits of the charges. Is that "America First"?

 

[SoyLeche]

Hmnn.

Because it would be like China (which has most of the people) telling us how to run the USA. They do, after all, have a LOT more people than we do.

Or....

Once upon a time a group of people moved into the states of New York, Illinois and Missouri ...not necessarily in that order. there were a LOT of people in that group. Their neighbors were slave owners and really objected to the mass move in, even though those people actually built the second largest city in the USA at the time, second only to Chicago (New York was in third place). The neighbors objected highly...to the point of burning them out, attacking their settlements, and having the governor of Missouri issue an 'extermination order" (his term, not that of the people whose target it was) that made it legal to kill any member of that group on sight if they didn't leave the area on a certain date.

Very much what the king in the book of Esther tried, come to think of it....even though the results were very different.

ANYway, the biggest problem the neighbors had was the fear that so many people would out vote them, get rid of slavery, run the government, etc., because there were so many of them, and so few of the original inhabitants.

You, personally, probably remember this stuff, enough to insure that other readers know that this really happened....

ANYway, the crux is this: if those who are on the side of the group with the most people should have the say, then I would still own 10 miles of prime river front property on the Mississippi. Dunno where you would be, but it wouldn't be wherever you are. You and I have a case for arguing for direct democracy and control of everything by one philosophical group. If the other guys had a point...that just because a whole bunch of people have the same philosophical ideas, they have the right to deny everybody else THEIR ideas....


As to the idea that because California and New York have the most people that those two states should have all the say over everybody else?

I'm sorry, but no. Californians and New Yorkers have NO CLUE what it's like to 'live in the middle,' and supply all the food for the coastal regions, and should NOT have the absolute right to run roughshod over everybody else, because nobody else is represented well.

I tend to agree that fear of "Tyrany of the majority" can lead to sub-optimal behavior and policy.

 

[dianaiad]

Correct. The people have rights. They should not have more rights than other people, and that is what you have been advocating.

So...in your view the people in New York who live in 800 sq ft apartments that cost a couple thousand a month, have never owned a car and don't have a license to drive one, get to where they want to go by either walking a mile or taking the subway, who think that eggs come from the supermarket and steaks come from the butchershop, who think that polyester/cotton is better for the enviornment should absolutely have the right to tell the folks in middle America who make it possible for them to HAVE all those goodies how to live, how to raise produce and cattle, how to drive and when, and get all upset when they are told that a 30 mile trip to the grocery store is pretty average?

I'm sorry, but no. What you are suggesting is JUST like saying that China, because she has so many people, can dictate to the rest of us what our cultures should be and how we should live, simply because there are more of them.

I don't want the idiots who live on the coast of California to tell ME how to drive, live and think, and they are only 60 miles from me. They are sixty very important miles.

I CAN'T live my life the way they do in New York...or in LA. L.A. scares me, quite frankly.

but your way would have them tell the farmer in the middle of the nation that he can't drive to the store, can't do what he needs to do to live and provide for the 'endpapers', and can't have representation to let those 'endpapers' know just how ludicrous their demands are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...in your view the people in New York who live in 800 sq ft apartments that cost a couple thousand a month, have never owned a car and don't have a license to drive one, get to where they want to go by either walking a mile or taking the subway, who think that eggs come from the supermarket and steaks come from the butchershop, should absolutely have the right to tell the folks in middle America who make it possible for them to HAVE all those goodies how to live, how to raise produce and cattle, how to drive and when, and get all upset when they are told that a 30 mile trip to the grocery store is pretty average?

I'm sorry, but no.

I don't want the idiots who live on the coast of California to tell ME how to drive, live and think, and they are only 60 miles from me. They are sixty very important miles.

I CAN'T live my life the way they do in New York...or in LA. L.A. scares me, quite frankly.

but your way would have them tell the farmer in the middle of the nation that he can't drive to the store, can't do what he needs to do to live and provide for the 'endpapers', and can't have representation to let those 'endpapers' know just how ludicrous their demands are.

Try again. This is a massive strawman. See if you can find a valid objection.

 

[dianaiad]

I tend to agree that fear of "Tyrany of the majority" can lead to sub-optimal behavior and policy.

Not just 'fear of," but the actuality.

Whether you and I like it or not, our ancestors COULD have outvoted everybody in Missouri. In a few matters, we did. That we didn't intend to do so in most of the matters that meant so much to the neighbors didn't mean anything. We COULD have, and being humans, is there any guarantee that eventually we would NOT have?

 

[SoyLeche]

Not just 'fear of," but the actuality.

Whether you and I like it or not, our ancestors COULD have outvoted everybody in Missouri. In a few matters, we did. That we didn't intend to do so in most of the matters that meant so much to the neighbors didn't mean anything. We COULD have, and being humans, is there any guarantee that eventually we would NOT have?

Oh, they absolutely would have. The laws in Missouri and Illinois were bad and poorly enforced. Mob rule is different than majority rules. The rule-of-law is supposed to take care of that. It failed, and when that fails - whether there are rules that let the majority rule or not - bad things are going to happen.

Still has nothing to do with the Presidential election though.

FWIW (which isn't much) - pretty much all of my ancestors came over from England in the 1850s (all but one of my 32 ancestors from that time period were born in England or Scottland and died in Utah), so they weren't really involved.

 

[dianaiad]

Try again. This is a massive strawman. See if you can find a valid objection.

Your calling it a strawman doesn't make it one. That IS a valid objection. The fact that the population of the USA is very heavily weighted toward the east and west coasts means that a one-to-one democracy means that pretty much everybody in 'the middle' will be utterly left out of government.

the thing is, the west and east coasts can accommodate large populations. The land in the middle can't...fewer people need more land to provide the stuff the west and east coast needs to supply their people.

But the way you have it set up, the folks in highly populated areas (which are only highly populated because the folks in the middle use the land to supply them) will absolutely dictate governmental terms.

When it comes down to it, that's why America cut governmental ties with England: too many people too far away who didn't understand the needs of the colonists made laws, rules and taxes that MADE NO SENSE in light of the lives the colonist had to lead.

.....and you think that repeating that history is a good thing?

 

[dianaiad]

Oh, they absolutely would have. The laws in Missouri and Illinois were bad and poorly enforced.

Still has nothing to do with the Presidential election though.

Sure it does, in a round about way. It's why the minority has representation in the electoral college; which allows the individual STATES to vote for president, popularly, and the electors of each state vote for POTUS.

Works fine.

 

[SoyLeche]

Sure it does, in a round about way. It's why the minority has representation in the electoral college; which allows the individual STATES to vote for president, popularly, and the electors of each state vote for POTUS.

Works fine.

There's nothing in the US Constitution that says the states have to apportion their electoral votes popularly, FWIW. Those are state laws.

If you are fine with a person in Wyoming essentially having 3 votes for President for each vote a person in California has, there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise.

Let's just consolidate the low-poulation states and move on.