When talking about impeachment as duty... There isn't a reason why it would have been in the air prior to 2016. First, sausage making is an ugly process but others get the benefit of eating the sausage. What Trump did has no benefit to anyone other than himself. Secondly, It doesn't matter if the whistle-blower was a disgruntled anti-Trumper. The only thing that matters is that he did or didn't break the law. Because cops may not follow procedures behind closed doors doesn't mean that when they get caught, they shouldn't be held accountable.
That's what I have been getting at the entire time. And really , for many its not because they aren't smart enough , its they don't have time or just aren't paying attention to all the details - Yeah , there are some dumb ones too. The results are what is going to matter to those people and the results are going to point towards .... The sound bites are gonna sound like .... No Collusion! Witch Hunt! Fake News!. And as I said before , this isn't some small percentage of people - its significant - somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%. But hey , I've been called a troll and a Dumpster supporter for trying to explain this. (Not by you). Its not that they are dumb. For most , its nothing to do with intelligence - they just aren't paying attention for whatever reason .... too busy , don't care , whatever. They are going to form their opinion based mostly on the results of the conviction or failure of and the subsequent soundbites because .... they aren't paying attention.
Again, anyone that buys the BS 'Witch-Hunt' argument has already bought the Republican spin. So they would buy the spin that if the Democrats really had evidence they would have impeached. The witch-hunt claims were true all along. They will buy that line of BS too. At least this way Dems can say we followed the evidence. They have evidence on the record that it was more than a witch hunt. Voters who were prone to believe the witch-hunt BS wouldn't stop believing it because Dems put forward no evidence and took no action. At least those that care to look into the charge can now see evidence on the record that it wasn't a witch hunt
I grew up in lower middle class public schools in Houston, so I thought I knew the spectrum of smart and dumb. My recent travel has included more time in rural america. I learned that I didn't have a full grasp of the full spectrum of uneducated/dumb people. I'm sure some might consider me rude (or worse) for saying it, but it's out there and it isn't just a few people. There are plenty of idiots in big cities as well, no question. But I go back to the american jury system - a box of 12 is comprised of high school level educated people. That's probably a fair reflection of the country and it is difficult for that box of 12 to make sense of all this information and disinformation. That's why trial lawyers are expert at reducing complicated cases into their essential themes and points. The republicans are presenting their summation to the american jury, they are unfortunately just deceiving the jury.
When talking about impeachment as a duty... There isn't a reason why it would have been in the air prior to 2016. Unless you go back to Clinton's presidency.
I hope you are right, but I think you are asking too much of independent voters. It's a very tall task.
I'm not predicting they will all be fine with Democrats. What I am saying is that the witch-hunt attacks were going to happen whether or not there was impeachment. The difference is that with impeachment at least there is evidence on record that it wasn't a witch-hunt. So which has a better chance of working for the Dems... Being accused of witch-hunting with evidence that they are guilty of it because they didn't have the conviction to actually try and impeach, or Being accused of witch-hunting but having evidence on record that it wasn't a witch-hunt? It is a no-lose proposition. Anyone that will believe the accusations were going to do believe no matter what. This way those that care to can see that there was evidence. And it won't be like they have to go back and watch all of the footage of the impeachment hearings. The candidates themselves can keep the evidence in front of the voting public. Democrats can only do that because they went ahead with impeachment.
Hmmm... _______ Rick Perry: 'Not once was the name Burisma mentioned to me' https://www.foxnews.com/media/energ...once-was-the-name-burisma-mentioned-to-me.amp
I agree that most likely the Senate will not convict but I don't think impeachment is going to be failure if Trump isn't convicted or that it was the wrong thing to do. About 5 months ago I wasn't for impeachment and felt it was too big of a risk. Who changed my mind was a Republican, Justin Amash, and he has had to leave the party because of his bravery. His point that if we can just tolerate or excuse unethical behavior in our leaders, if we don't impeach over abuse of power like this then what is impeachment even for? This is about history and principle. It shouldn't be about polls. Regarding political risk I would also say there is greater risk for not impeaching or not following through it. One of the criticisms of Democrats is that they are weak and indecisive. Consider how much criticism was heaped upon Obama for not pressing a public option and for not following through with his redline in Syria. If the Democrats had just continued to just point out the unethical behavior of Trump while not doing anything that would just confirm that the Democrats are weak and divided. Right now the Democrats are more united than they ever have been and have shown they are willing to act. If Trump isn't removed from office it will be on Republicans and history will record that there were many Republicans like Rep. Hurd, Romney and even Mitch McConnell who criticized Trump and called his behavior unethical and unacceptable yet did nothing about it. Finally I wouldn't put any stock in presidential polls now. A year is a long time in politics and in this Admin. it is eon. Frankly we don't know what will happen. We could be in a recession, we could be at war. For that matter we don't even know who Trump's opponent will be. There is too much unpredictable to say whether impeachment will have any impact on the election.
How do you beat Trump? Start by not nominating a radical that wants to go to government ran health insurance, doesn’t want to take people’s guns away and isn’t promising every government service under the sun.... Run someone that is a moderate and at least feigns interest in the concerns and culture of the fly over states. There is a reason Obama and Clinton were elected, they understood and didn’t show contempt for rural and small town America.... Hilary Clinton could not even hide her contempt for poor white people... so they voted for the wealthy conman because he at least made an effort to count them, even if in their heart of hearts they knew he was just throwing them a bone.
This attitude is part of the reason rural America believes that the Democratic Party doesn’t give a damn about them. People in rural areas are not any more dumb than people in urban centers. What is different is priorities and to some degree values. This arrogance held by urban Democrats is absurd..... Rural America will vote for Democrats when Democrats campaign for their vote, makes an effort to understand them and stops viewing them as rubes. Honestly it is no different than how the Republican Party views blacks or women.
I don't think rural America cares about internet message board banter. Democrat politicians are very politically correct and wouldn't dare offend or insult rural Americans. I just don't buy this narrative. I would say most Republican politicians won't openly insult minorites and urban voters but there are far more examples of fringe extremist Republican candidates expressing bigoted views of urban and minority voters. You don't see that from extremist Democrat politicians. Extremist Democrat politicians are economic populists and are even more embracing of rural blue collar workers than mainstream Democrats. Donald Trump is differnent in that we now have to consider him a mainstream Republican as he was chosen out of 17 GOP candidates and is president. He's actually willing to openly insult urban voters and openly punish them to prove a taking point such as openly expressing the idea of dumping massive swaths of asylum seekers to blue urban cities, slashing federal help for deviststing life altering wild fires in California and just calling urban cities rat infested shitholes. Imagine Obama insulting Kentucky with "meth head capital" or something along those lines. You can't and it's why I believe these takes about "this is why Donald Trump is elected" when someone insults a Republican voter in rural American on a internet message board comes from bad faith. Both sides have massive swaths of keyboard warriors insulting the other side. One side goes out and actually elects someone to manage the world's largest bureaucracy out of that vindictive spite. I already discussed this with @Os Trigonum. He didn't reply of course but I also pointed out how the left's "extremists" don't vote out of vindictiveness but rather what many such as yourself percieve to be unpragamtic policy desires out of naive idealism. Just look at the rhetoric of the left's "extremist candidates" such as Bernie and Warren. Never will they attempt to bash rural voters, rural culture etc. Now look at the rhetoric of Trump, someone who constantly bashes urban centers and revels in the political divorce between rural and urban voters, asking for Muslim bans, making up false stories of minority groups celebrating terror attacks in the US, calling American cities rat infested etc.
Althouse this morning: https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/quick-find-absolutely-clear-1-paragraph.html November 22, 2019 Quick. Find an absolutely clear, 1-paragraph, just-the-facts summary of exactly what Trump did that warrants impeachment. Right now, as Democrats are deciding whether to plunge into impeachment, they need to check in with reality. I'm begging you, Democrats: Assume you are talking to an ordinary American, someone who hasn't been sitting around watching hearings, who doesn't have the time or patience to listen to elaborate explanations, and who isn't just already on your team. Imagine this person saying to you: I'm very busy. I'm going to vote next year, but I'm seeing this impeachment business, and I don't have time to do all the homework. I don't trust any of you politicos, and I don't want to try to figure out who among all you characters is more honest and patriotic than the others. I'd like to wait for the election and hash it all out next year in the normal way, but you're talking about immersing us in all this crazy stuff about who said what to whom and what was in Trump's head. You need the support of the people — normal people, like me — and you need to tell me clearly, factually, what the hell you are talking about. If you say 100 words without pulling it together and making sense to me, you need to shut up and leave me alone. I hate you. The reason for impeaching should be very clear and not dependent on a predisposition to make leaps of inference or the belief that Trump is a terrible President. Democrats, if you can't do this, you need to step back from the precipice. Posted by Ann Althouse at 6:02 AM
This is a faulty article. I could say it in 100 words the evidence showing what Trump has done that warrants impeachment. But the process shouldn't be confined to 100 words. Let the process play out and then it up in 100 words. She also put in the Republican talking points about what was in Trump's head. We have his words. We don't need what was in his head.
