US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

There probably are quite some more intel people in kowledge of Trump's communications. Question is how many will dare to step forward. While the law protects them if following the predefined procedure, Donald Capone has demanded his followers quite openly to put the first whistelblower down. And he did not mean that as a joke.



Season is open on them both. Nice "president" you got yourself there, America.


Here is what another famous whistleblower, the one who went against Nixon, has to say about the situation the whistleblowers today are in. They have good reason to fear for their safety and life.


https://translate.google.de/translat...a-1290068.html

[mapuc]

I only wonder how far this "we the Republican support our President" will go ?

In the case where they would find solidt evidence.

Markus

[Skybird]

The evidence is already there, since Trump has commkited some of the acts right under the eyes and ears of the public.

The Republicans will support Trump as loong as it sits well with their voters at home. Evidence, law-and-order, justice - have nothign to do with it. The impeachment system in this view is lethally flawed, since it leaves the question whether to impeach a president or not, to non-neutral, biased actors with own interests. Its as if the question of foul play in footbal is worth a penalty or not is being decided by not a referee, but the playing team(s). Thats why I find the whole system quite worthless. It may have been worked with the noble people of the past at the times of the founders, but I somehow doubt that the people back then really were that much more noble than they are today.

The republican leader in the senate yesterday alreayd said it in a campaign video in Kentucky loud and clear: he and the Republicans will support Trump NO MATTER WHAT, he will bring any attempt of an impeahcment to fall.

https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/...nt-senat-stopp

Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a campaign video for his state of Kentucky, is campaigning to block an impeachment of Donald Trump in the Senate. Under his leadership, the chamber would not allow that, he said in the video. McConnell will stand next year as a senator for re-election, thereby promoting his close ties to the US president.

In the video, McConnell points to the constitution that the House approved accusations against the President must be passed to the Senate for consideration. The so-called impeachment would be stopped at the latest with a "Senate majority with me as a majority leader," he said. However, even senior Republicans support an investigation into a possible impeachment procedure.

Only the loss of their own offices, and voters threatening to burn their house down can make them give Trump up. And what voters of Trump will most likely do, Trump described himself by that he could even shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue in public, and his fans would stay loyal to him.

The impeachment system simply does not work as it was hoped by the founders that it would, that simple.

Its made worse by having a two party system, with one party now being more or less extremely socialist, and the other being right-wing, nationalistic extremists.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The impeachment system in this view is lethally flawed, since it leaves the question whether to impeach a president or not,[I] to non-neutral, biased actors with own interests.

There is a better system. It will happen on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. It's called an election.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by u crank

There is a better system. It will happen on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. It's called an election.

What if a majority of the American voters forgive him and give him a second chance ?
(or the American election system gives him a second term in the White House)

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The impeachment system simply does not work as it was hoped by the founders that it would, that simple.

No Skybird, it is working exactly as my countries founders intended. Impeachment, or in other words, abrogating the will of the electorate, should require strong bipartisan support and rightfully be extremely difficult to pull off successfully. As U Crank said there is a far better way of deciding who sits in the oval office.

[Skybird]

When senators do not base their decision on whether the president must go or the case made against him and not on evidence and logical conclusion, but on their very own selfish career interests and the question whether they personally benefit and profit from the decision pro or against the president, then this is as if a crime case at court gets decided by the judges not on grounds of the police records and evidenc,e but the question whether the judge can persoinally benefit from making this or that sentence. That is a corruption of justice, or arbitrary justice.

This is not a working system. Because the lacking neutrality and objectivity of the people voting for or against impeaching - representatives and senatores all havign their own interests - is not taken into account sufficiently. When a suspect is brought to court to find whether he is guilt yor not,. it is not up to him to amke that deicison, nor is the decision up to his friends and accomplices.

As I said, as if in sports a penalty is decided on not by a - neutral - referee, but the one team that currently has one player more on the field or yells the loudest for its own advantage. That is absurd.

The judge, the mediator, the referee, the deciding instance, has to have no own interests in such a conflict or legal case that is to be decided. That is true for none of the senators in senate. Impeachment leaves the decision to the wrong instances. The parties should be the last to have a word in it. They should have no word in it at all, but somethign like an independencet state attorney that cannot be called up by the commander of the executive. The High ciurt might come to m ind, but then the judges there get called up by the running president, so this has to be changed, too.

This design can only be understood to be a consequence of different social, political, cultural, and historic circumstances at the time of the founders. They formed this idea of impeachment under the influence of the situation and time they lived in. And they cannot have forseen the massive and fundamental chnages - and distortions and corruptions - of politics in later centuries. And certainly did they not forsee Trump.

The impeachment system, like quite some other details in the founding papers, should be updated. Right now it is a fake effect. And this in a political system that leaves an awesome amount of power to the head of state. This impeashment system, designed to serve as an emergency safety not to be used by routine, cannot acchieve what it was meant to acchieve. And I mean this far beyond the Trump case.

[JU_88]

Cries for impeachment (on rather ropey grounds from what i can see), And all these increasingly more common chants of "Lock him/her up!" Doesn't bode too well for the future of U.S and western democracy.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The judge, the mediator, the referee, the deciding instance, has to have no own interests in such a conflict or legal case that is to be decided. That is true for none of the senators in senate. Impeachment leaves the decision to the wrong instances. The parties should be the last to have a word in it. They should have no word in it at all, but somethign like an independencet state attorney that cannot be called up by the commander of the executive. The High ciurt might come to m ind, but then the judges there get called up by the running president, so this has to be changed, too.

This is pretty much the standard argument of progressive/left/Democrat activists in the US. If the system isn't working for them, then the system must be changed. Too many Conservative Judges on Supreme Court, add more Judges. Electoral College elects the wrong President, get rid of EC. Your suggestion that 'Impeachment leaves the decision to the wrong instances. The parties should be the last to have a word in it.' is silly. Impeachment is a political process. Nancy Pelosi is demonstrating that right now. There are other avenues to removing a President. We just endured one for over two years. Impeachment is not triggered automaticlly. It is a choice that a political party makes. Their reason for doing it is completely political. And this system is not going to change. As I have stated the best way to remove a President from office without the stain of political interference is an election. It would seem to me that the Democrat brain trust does not like that option because of a stunning lack of a capable candidate for the 2020 election. Impeachment will be putting a finger on the scale for that election.

[Skybird]

That is just distration. A criminal offender who has a majority voting him in a seocnd time nevertheless is a breaker of laws, a criminal offender. And voiters voting for such a criminal, should be held accountable for it. Becasue they help and agree to have a criminal offender in the office, which means they are accomplices in crime.


Nobody should eb allowed to stand abiove the law or bend it in his favour. I agree, impeachment should not be allowed as the stanard club to weild by opposition parties to get rid of a president they do not like. It is the ultimate ratio to remove an offender who poses a threat and a clar and present danger to the constittuional order of the United Staes, its laws, and who abuses his seat for own profit and benefit. The decision on dciding whether or not compliance with laws is maibtained, is not to be left to the electorate. It is not to be left to senators benefitting from it. It is to be left to a court whose judges have been called either in consesus of parties and the people, or in any way that I cannot imagne that guarantees these judges got called in neutrally, not interfered by office holders, wannabe-benefitters, and politicians.


Trump commits criminal deeds of serious scale and implication right in oublic, under the running mikes and cameras of the public. As a prsident, he is not just any nobody. Leaving him where he is, has far reaching consequences. He is a proven offender, he has given the proof right himself. Last time not even every fifth american has voted for him.


Impeahcment was created as an option to be used rarely. But it wa snot made as an otpion that to use is out of quesiton from all beginning on, then it would have been useless to even allow the option of using it, one could have left it out. It is a tool meant to allow limiting mounting signficiant damage BEFORE next elections, instead of countign down the clock while the calamity continues.



Trump is underhanded and slippery, but he clearly imlies he wants somebody to kill the whistelblowers, he has asked at least two foreogn states to mess with the internal affairs and generla elections in the US and to provide him dirt that he could throw against his rivals, he has blackmailed foreign states not in congruence with state interest and American laws and goals of diplomacy, but for his own perosnal interest. That is treason, that is consoriacy against the state and state reason, that is a betrayal of the american people, and last but not least it is the style and behaviour of a cheap carricature of a Chicago 1920th gangster. This is not a case for the electorate. It is a case for a court.The american law I think bans people who got senetenced earlier in their life from casting ballots at an election. Candidates who want to run, must also qualify in legal records of theirs, theyx cannot be offenders who are on the run from prison guards or who have broken parole. In other words: criminal offenders cannot run, nor can they vote (in some states at least, I do not know all the details of course). But a traitor and criminal in office can run for the predidency again and shall be immune from any attempt to remove him so that he has not the maximum time possible to maximse the damage he is doing?


Ridiculous, and totally illogical. You guys are too drunk by tribal emotions.

[Bilge_Rat]

So the whole weekend I heard dem/media talking heads/reporters arguing that Trump committed an impeachable offence by asking China to investigate the Bidens.

What I can't figure out is:

1. Are they just partisan hacks who will say anything to try to get Trump no matter how ridiculous?; or

2. Are they just so stupid that they actually believe what they say?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is just distration. A criminal offender who has a majority voting him in a seocnd time nevertheless is a breaker of laws, a criminal offender.

An American citizen, including the President, is only held liable for crimes if he is convicted in a court of law. Inuendo and accusations by his detrators is just that.

And voiters voting for such a criminal, should be held accountable for it. Becasue they help and agree to have a criminal offender in the office, which means they are accomplices in crime.

Again you confuse the legal and political systems. Exactly how would you hold a voter accountable for his choice in a free and legal election. Are you suggesting that they be charged with a crime? The price voters pay is that their candidate loses an election. Shaming those voters is a dispicable practice.

But a traitor and criminal in office can run for the predidency again and shall be immune from any attempt to remove him so that he has not the maximum time possible to maximse the damage he is doing?

He is not immune to an attempt to remove him. Where did you get that idea? The legal process to remove him has begun. What other means would you suggest?

Of course that means is fraught with dangers for both parties involved. Since the impeachment process is a political one both sides can and will be held accountable in the political realm. 2020 is approaching fast and voters will have their say. That is the way the system should work rather than hysterical voices making demands that are outside the rule of law.

Ridiculous, and totally illogical. You guys are too drunk by tribal emotions.

Who are 'you guys'? I am a Canadian citizen. I have no more say in the process than you do. We both have opinions and you know what they say about opinions.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

An American citizen, including the President, is only held liable for crimes if he is convicted in a court of law. Inuendo and accusations by his detrators is just that.

Trump committed several of the things he gets accused of right under the eye of the public, with mikes and cameras running and or witnesses present. That is called evidence then. It gets not clearer than being caught in the act.

Again you confuse the legal and political systems. Exactly how would you hold a voter accountable for his choice in a free and legal election. Are you suggesting that they be charged with a crime? The price voters pay is that their candidate loses an election. Shaming those voters is a dispicable practice.

I was speaking more generally there. As a principle I say that every voter is repsonsible for the vote he gives, and cannot complai n about the consequences of it, becasue he gave this vote and not any other. When you vote for a criminal therefore you are responsible for having voted for criminal, and if he turns against you and turns you into his prey or sufferer of consaequences from his crimes, you have no case to complain about, sine oyuj legitimized him. Innocent victims are those who did not vote for Trump, and still must suffer the consequences from him getting elected. Those who elected him, are no victims, but perpetrators, followers, accompolices, however you call them in English, I am not sure on the correct translation of "Mitläufer". You are no victim of a criminal if you legitimised the criminal yourself. In case of pllticalians I dwmand of Western adult beings that by now they have understoof what kind of people they are dealing with and what their words are worth. You cannot live for years and decades and never learning the endlessly repeated lesson without showing that you are either hiopelessly naive - or incapable to learn. In which case you should have no right to vote, honestly said. I refer - once again - to the many books and writings by Jason Brennan on this issue of incapable voters.

He is not immune to an attempt to remove him. Where did you get that idea? The legal process to remove him has begun. What other means would you suggest?

A process that is not nrigged by the deicison being made by biased acocomplicues who are not neutral but have their own ineteests in the game that overrule their search for justice and loyalty to the law. The decision is left to accomplices who are neither neutrall, nor unbiased. They have their own career intewrest, and they will deicde for or against trump not on basis of evidenc eand violations provne, but on the assessment of what serves their interests best. That is like a sports referee whisteling a game according to the money bets he has placed before the match began.



I maybe should add that I have since long a fundamentla issue with that the immunity of members of partliamnt can only be lfted by - parliament, and that potliians ijn general are not being held accountable with their private property and freedom for the consequncers of their decisions. They always play at the risk of other,s not teir own, and they always bet with other people'S moneyl, not their own. And they put themselves above the law if they are the ones that must be asked whether an offender from their middle can be investigated or prosectured. This is not up to them to decide, it should be decided by somebody who has no own interest in the game. As we say in german: "eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus."



Same is true for the impeachment process. It leaves the decision to the wrong people - biased followers or rivals of the accused person, which in case of impeachment is the president. Its as if bringing a clan member to court - and leave the decision of his guilt to his family. What do you think how it will end? The family waill say: not guilty, he is one of us, we know him.

Of course that means is fraught with dangers for both parties involved. Since the impeachment process is a political one both sides can and will be held accountable in the political realm. 2020 is approaching fast and voters will have their say. That is the way the system should work rather than hysterical voices making demands that are outside the rule of law.

So now you imply that the impeachment option itsel is "out of the law".



Impeachment is the ultima ratio to get rid of a danegrous offen der ion office BEFORE he can amximise damage by serving a full term. That's the very reason behind why there is the option of impeachment. If you declare that invalid now, you can delete the whole idea.



Canadian, okay, noted.
BTW, Pelosi has resisted for mo nths and months to pressure from her party to start an impeachment process. Its just that finalyl the pressure grew so strong in the face of the latest stunts by Trumpo that she could no longer stop it without making the role of an opposition completely poitnless. But again,. she of cours eknwos that the proc ess will e stalled by Republican majprity senators in the senate, and she was therefore not eager at all to get impeachment launched.



It spöossibloe hwoever that the process beign laucnhed now encourages other whistleblowers as well to step forward. This is the real risk here for Trump, and that is the reaosn why he is so thinskinned now and becomes so vulgar in behaviour and language. Its about intimidating these possible more whistleblowers.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Trump committed several of the things he gets accused of right under the eye of the public, with mikes and cameras running and or witnesses present. That is called evidence then. It gets not clearer than being caught in the act.

This is an opinion that you and others have. And if it is true then let's proceed to the next step. Right now Pelosi, who has the say here on whether to move ahead with an impeachment has not done so. Ask yourself why. Democrats are playing a game here that they think the voting public won't see for what it is. The impeachment 'inquiry' is a farce. It has been going on for almost three years. I say get on with it. It will be great kabuki theater. Pass the popcorn.

[mapuc]

Have some technical impeachment questions

An impeachment is what I understand almost like an ordinary trial were the accused get a verdict.

An accused can get guilty or not guilty

If Trump is impeached he is accused for having broken some federal law or laws.

Here's my questions

1. If Trump is found not guilty- What happens thereafter, does he go back and continue his job as the elected President ?
2. If Trump is found guilty as charged - What happens thereafter, who take over as the President ? Is it the Vice President or someone else.
(I can tell you that I have among many comments on danish news pages read stuff like- "It would be good if Trump could be removed so the Dem could take over the White House again")

Markus