Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

zing!

[Dr. Strangelove]

If you've watched the entire process, then godspeed. You deserve some sort of comp time to rest your exploding mind. I can't really comment as I've spared myself watching a preordained outcome. But, Nadler has always struck me a hack. Schiff, while I don't think that highly of him, is polished.

I would imagine Rs would say the same thing about Sekulow and Dersh, but meh -- whatever.

I think Dersh's argument was hackish but his presentation style is highly effective. Probably the best on Trump's team. Especially if your main goal is winning over the people whose main acquaintance with the law is watching old episodes of Matlock at a bar with the sound off.

[froot loops]

zing!

It wasn't meant to be a burn.

[iam416]

Especially if your main goal is winning over the people whose main acquaintance with the law is watching old episodes of Matlock at a bar with the sound off

I will never disagree with a statement that works in a reference to Lionel Hutz, either direct or otherwise. CONCUR!

[iam416]

Geraghty nails it: https://www.nationalreview.com/the-m...e-end-in-mind/

His argument for impeachment is the argument I find most persuasive. Of note, motive is of no consequence (which is what Dershowitz said). The question is one of separation of powers and whether the President exceeded his constitutional authority (he did) and then whether that merits impeachment (there's definitely an argument for it). Whatever his motivation is for exceeding his constitutional authority is of little to no consequence (again, as Dersh said). Now, Dersh gets it way fucking wrong when he says that answer to the second question can only be yes if the act was also criminal.

Anyway, -- DSL, I think you would find this perspective worthwhile. I don't expect that you read many NRO links, but I do think this is probably at least worth the 45 minutes it'll take you to read and process 700 words.

The "audience" question presupposes the piece, but even if you disagree with that, it's still worth the read.

[Dr. Strangelove]

He presents a solid argument and way to present it to the Senate. Would it have changed a single Republican vote? I really doubt it.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Great read. Nails it.

I have become so frustrated with the news reports, mostly offering completely uninformed views of the complex constitutional issues at stake or ignoring them completely, its refreshing to see a journalist drill down to the essential arguments.

I particularly like the"no harm no foul" aspects of Geraghty's presentation. However, I think it is too late for the Senate to deal with this or, they understand it but simply choose to ignore it. As Geraghty suggests, the Congress and the public is going to get more of this kind of shit from Trump and every president that follows him until Congress comes to grip with the implications of Trump's actions and does something about it. I'm not confident in that.

[Dr. Strangelove]

BTW, going off on a tangent, but I should've mentioned it days ago when I first saw the comment..

Nate Silver or one of the other pollster nerds I follow said he believed Trump's small rise in approval polls is due to base anger over impeachment. We know anger drives voter intensity more than happiness does (probably not a good thing but it is what it is). Knowing that, Silver speculated that the Dem candidates could see a corresponding small surge when Trump's acquitted

[iam416]

He presents a solid argument and way to present it to the Senate. Would it have changed a single Republican vote? I really doubt it.

Right. The premise of the discussion is almost certainly frivolous in that there was nothing to be done. And, under those circumstances, the audience should probably be the voters. Further, you can probably make the case that with impeachment being a fundamentally political process, the voters ought to be the audience regardless.

In any event, it's the argument that most appeals to me.

[Hannibal]

He presents a solid argument and way to present it to the Senate. Would it have changed a single Republican vote? I really doubt it.

I might have possibly if this had been initiated with something remotely resembling good faith. But after you have pissed away all of that good faith on "Russian collusion" nonsense and a ridiculous "obstruction of Congress" charge, then it's impossible to interpret as anything other than an attempt to overturn the fair and square 2016 election.

[Hannibal]

... with impeachment being a fundamentally political process, the voters ought to be the audience regardless...

Speaking of which, does everyone remember all of those articles from a few months back comparing the impeachment of Trump to the impeachment of Nixon and Clinton? The polls showed that support for impeachment of Nixon and Clinton grew over time. The conclusion, of course, was that Trump was screwed, since the polls were already showing high support for impeachment. Since then, however, public support has moved in the other direction.

[iam416]

BTW, going off on a tangent, but I should've mentioned it days ago when I first saw the comment..

Nate Silver or one of the other pollster nerds I follow said he believed Trump's small rise in approval polls is due to base anger over impeachment. We know anger drives voter intensity more than happiness does (probably not a good thing but it is what it is). Knowing that, Silver speculated that the Dem candidates could see a corresponding small surge when Trump's acquitted

I just read an article on a study that found that in the context of social media, the more of the opposing view people read the more hardened they became in their own view. Both D and R. It's one thing to read that their basic go-to authors think one way, but it's another when a hated author goes contra. It was in the context of the identitarian era we're in (broadly, not simply race, gender, etc, but, e.g., airline pilot or democrat or Ohioian, etc).

It's also consistent with the study that found that there was an optimal position to the left or right of the median for a candidate and that once you move too far left or too far left you don't energize your base as much as you energize your opponent's base (the Bernie conundrum).

[iam416]

I might have possibly if this had been initiated with something remotely resembling good faith. But after you have pissed away all of that good faith on "Russian collusion" nonsense and a ridiculous "obstruction of Congress" charge, then it's impossible to interpret as anything other than an attempt to overturn the fair and square 2016 election.

I'm also sympathetic to this position. Though, I tend to think that the motivation doesn't much matter (as it does with PDJT and the Ukraine). Either the offense is impeachable or not.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I just read an article on a study that found that in the context of social media, the more of the opposing view people read the more hardened they became in their own view. Both D and R. It's one thing to read that their basic go-to authors thing one way, but it's another when a hated author goes contra. It was in the context of the identitarian era we're in (broadly, not simply race, gender, etc, but, e.g., airline pilot or democrat or Ohioian, etc).

It's also consistent with the study that found that there was an optimal position to the left or right of the median for a candidate and that once you move too far left or too far left you don't energize your base as much as you energize your opponent's base (the Bernie conundrum).

Right. It's been a claim of the Dems for a while now that Trump showing up for a rally right before special elections has actually helped Democratic candidates. It reminds their voter...oh, right, fuck this guy.

Speaking ONLY about Bernie though...I've seen convincing arguments that there is more crossover between Bernie voters and Trump voters than either side cares to admit. The "burn it all down" portion of each base, so to speak.

[iam416]

Speaking ONLY about Bernie though...I've seen convincing arguments that there is more crossover between Bernie voters and Trump voters than either side cares to admit. The "burn it all down" portion on each base, so to speak.

I easily believe that. It also speaks to why a Bernie-PDJT is my goddamn nightmare.