Irish oddsmaker gives 33% chance Trump will be impeached

[robkelk]

According to the Impeach-O-Meter

[classicdrogn]

Come on, come on, baby needs a new pair o' shoes...!

[Dartz]

Won at 20/1 for the cunt getting into power with a tenner bet so.....

...it'd be an interesting bookend.

[robkelk]

The Impeach-O-Meter was reset last weekend - odds are down to 25% now.

---

Also, Lessons from the Republican effort to impeach Bill Clinton

The past week — and past two years — have been unprecedented in American politics. But in the annals of U.S. government history, 1998 was also a year to remember.

Republicans were challenging Democratic President Bill Clinton in a historic midterm election. At the time it was not clear where the investigation into the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was going, or what would happen when it was complete.

But House Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, smelled blood — and they opted to play the impeachment card.

[robkelk]

Impeach-O-Meter hits an all-time high

To be fair, I wouldn't call this month's expert impartial.

[Rajvik]

I'm going to say this, if the house does not vote to impeach Trump I will be very surprised. Pleasantly mind you, but still surprised. The real odds are on wjetjer or not the impeachment is successful or not, and unless something drastically changes, I would put money against it.

[robkelk]

I seriously doubt that there will be any motion for impeachment until either (a) the Democrats have control of both chambers, or (b) the Senate makes it clear that they'd follow through on a House motion. Remeber how badly the "impeach Clinton" movement went, because the chambers were split?

[classicdrogn]

Yeah, I'd have to agree that actually presenting a motion to impeach is highly unlikely unless they're confident it will succeed. It would burn far, far too much political capital to try when there's already so much polarization in Washington and the parties in general, to the point that actual fist fights on the floor of the House breaking out over it would not surprise me.

[hazard]

Trump's unlikely to be impeached until Mueller drops his report or so many indictments follow where Trump's called out as a co conspirator that the Republicans can't hide any more.

Should the Mueller investigation carry on into 2021 and Trump not be reelected in 2020 no impeachment will follow. Trump will simply be indicted and arrested the moment he's no longer president. And I'd expect there's enough evidence on Trump to hit him with state level charges he can't pardon.

EDIT: You saw nothing and any evidence to the contrary is falsified.

[Inquisitive Raven]

Should the Mueller investigation carry on into 2021 and Trump not be reelected in 2016 no impeachment will follow. Trump will simply be indicted and arrested the moment he's no longer president. And I'd expect there's enough evidence on Trump to hit him with state level charges he can't pardon.

Might want to edit that date there.

[Rajvik]

The problem for the Dems is that they really don't have a choice in this as it is something that they ran on, (albeit mostly quietly). If they don't at least try, then their base is going to move even further to the left and be easy pickings for the far right. If they do and fail, while they might lose a few house seats, they MIGHT pick back up some Senate seats, though I doubt it. Honestly it is their only real play.

[hazard]

The problem for the Dems is that they really don't have a choice in this as it is something that they ran on, (albeit mostly quietly). If they don't at least try, then their base is going to move even further to the left and be easy pickings for the far right. If they do and fail, while they might lose a few house seats, they MIGHT pick back up some Senate seats, though I doubt it. Honestly it is their only real play.

Not really.

The Democrats have been fairly consistent on how they're handling a possible Trump impeachment: Up to this point no sufficient evidence is known to the House or the Senate for solid grounds for impeachment. They've also noted that the most important investigation that may result in the evidence that an impeachment procedure is required is the Mueller investigation and that that one is ongoing, and that they're not going to interfere with it for their own political gain. The report for that investigation will be considered when it's made and no sooner.

Do they want to get rid of Trump? Yes. Will they try Republican tactics for it when those tactics are really dangerous for themselves? No.

This is a good idea because AFAICT the 2018 elections vastly favoured the Republicans in the Senate, while the 2020 elections will be considerably more favourable for the Democrats. And they've also got the ongoing dumpster fire of Trump dragging down the Republicans.

Their best play is the one they played in the 2018 elections, talking to an outraged public and convincing them that what they want to deal with most is the issues that play locally. And well, that ongoing dumpster fire stokes a lot of outrage against the reds.

[Black Aeronaut]

In other words, in their continued support of Trump, the Republicans are burning far more political capital among the American populace than they can generate.

It's not a matter of if, but when the pendulum swings once again.

Here's the question I'd like to put to Republican voters: if you must vote Republican, then can you please at least vote for decent human beings? By doing so we can hopefully put a stop to this polarization and actually get things done for a change.

[Rajvik]

How do you define decent human beings? Most liberals i talk to seem to think that the liberal ideals they espouse are the only things that make anyone decent. The problem there is that your liberal-progressive-globalist ideals are bad for us both as a people and as a nation. The United States can not take in, nor care for the world, and if we tried to go with a UN run "Democracy" democracy would fail within the first hour because there are more totalitarian regimes out there as well as the majority of the population not understanding what true democracy is.

Sorry, but sometimes you have to be the asshole in the room to get things done that need doing, whether people like it or not.

[classicdrogn]

I'd say it's like Republicans are living on a different planet, but the problem is they aren't. I think it's time for me to stop reading the Politics subforum again, because any more I try to say just ends up being fightin' words. I think it's actually worse that I agree with a couple of the conservative points that are nonstarters for liberals as much as the rest of my opinions are for conservatives, because I can't even honestly argue for any of the figures on either side.

[robkelk]

How do you define decent human beings?

I can't speak for Black Aeronaut, but I can say that I think this particular quote provides a good starting point:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink? And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, [even] these least, ye did it unto me.
-- Matthew 25:34-40 (American Standard translation)

If you aren't a Christian, please consult similar passages in the holy texts of whatever religion you happen to believe in.

Most liberals i talk to seem to think that the liberal ideals they espouse are the only things that make anyone decent. The problem there is that your liberal-progressive-globalist ideals are bad for us both as a people and as a nation. The United States can not take in, nor care for the world, and if we tried to go with a UN run "Democracy"  democracy would fail within the first hour because there are more totalitarian regimes out there as well as the majority of the population not understanding what true democracy is.

That is not a reason to close your borders. That is a reason to go out, share your wealth, and teach people what freedom and democracy actually are.

Sorry, but sometimes you have to be the asshole in the room to get things done that need doing, whether people like it or not.

By that logic, a Democrat would be justified in being an asshole in order to get Trump impeached, because that is something that a Democrat thinks needs doing.

There is no excuse to be an asshole. All assholes do is convince the people whose minds they want to change that their minds should not change.

[robkelk]

I'd say it's like Republicans are living on a different planet, but the problem is they aren't. I think it's time for me to stop reading the Politics subforum again, because any more I try to say just ends up being fightin' words. I think it's actually worse that I agree with a couple of the conservative points that are nonstarters for liberals as much as the rest of my opinions are for conservatives, because I can't even honestly argue for any of the figures on either side.

Neither side has a monopoly on being right - or on being wrong.

[robkelk]

Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick has reset the Impeach-O-Meter.
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-42...-1.4952405

I think it's really important to keep separating in our heads whether President Trump has committed demonstrably impeachable crimes, and whether you're going to get two-thirds of Republicans in the senate to impeach him.

On the one front, I think it's clear with every passing day that the kinds of things the president can be tagged for, ranging from the ongoing obstruction probe to collusion with Russia, these conspiracy crimes that include lying; having Michael Cohen lie to the American public, to federal officials — all of those things are really bad, and they're impeachable.

But the only question, I think, is whether Republicans are going to, at some point, peel off and let him twist in the wind.

She's set the Impeach-O-Meter to 38½% - slightly higher than her rating a year ago, but much lower than the partisan setting of two weeks ago.

[Black Aeronaut]

How do you define decent human beings? Most liberals i talk to seem to think that the liberal ideals they espouse are the only things that make anyone decent.

And what ideals are those?  Actually doing right by others for a change?  Not acting like you're the only person that matters?

Look, I get that there's a lot of terrible people out there that like to act all self-righteous.  Word of advice: quit talking to people at political rallies.  You're only gonna find vitriol for the most part.

You want to know what real liberal ideals are?  Start by asking your neighbors.  Start by talking to the rando on the street.  You're gonna hear a little bit of everything, but by and large it's gonna be a lot different that whatever cesspits you're listening to.

The problem there is that your liberal-progressive-globalist ideals are bad for us both as a people and as a nation. The United States can not take in, nor care for the world, and if we tried to go with a UN run "Democracy"  democracy would fail within the first hour because there are more totalitarian regimes out there as well as the majority of the population not understanding what true democracy is.

You've got the wrong idea there.  We want the United States of America to remain The United States of America.  And to be quite frank with you, I have never once heard another liberal say that we should let the UN take over everything.  Trust me, a lot of us are as unhappy with the UN as you are.  If you have actually heard a liberal stating unironically that the UN should be in charge, then please, point them out to me.  I'd love to hear what they have to say.

The real purpose of the UN is to get everyone on the same page.  Not to act as a replacement for anyone's government.  For example, if we want to avert climate change, then that's going to require an effort on the part of all nations in the world, and not just the USA.  This is the purpose that the UN serves: to provide a venue in which international agreements like that can be hammered out.

You want the USA to just fuck off everyone else in the world and close its borders?  That will do two things.

1) There will be an economic depression that makes the Great Depression look like a kiddie fair in the park.
2) Russia and China start trying to work out how they're gonna divvy up the free world.

Prove me wrong.  I fucking dare you.

That's no bueno for us.  Best case scenario?  We only have to deal with them as trade partners because they're gonna be the only ones left to trade with.  And we WILL have to deal with them whether you like it or not.  China has the only source of Neodymium in the world, which is critical to things like modern weapon systems.  And Russia has the only source of Titanium in the world - I shouldn't have to state why that's important.  THESE ARE MATERIALS THAT HAVE NO SUBSTITUTE.

Worse case?  Once those two have the rest of the world in their grasp, the last one standing is gonna be us, and we WILL NOT be in any condition to fight that kind of war.

Our only hope would be the fucking EU, and trust me, they aren't gonna be interested once we've burned our bridges, no matter how much industrial capacity we can bring to the table.  They have all they need because they have wisely managed their own industries (with the exception of Greece, Turkey, and Italy, but that will be all the more reason for the EU to prioritize their issues once we fuck off.)

We need to be involved because if we aren't, then we get fucking left behind to rot and then the vultures to start picking over what's left.

PROVE.

ME.

WRONG.

Sorry, but sometimes you have to be the asshole in the room to get things done that need doing, whether people like it or not.

That's exactly the problem!  Me first! Me first! GIMME GIMME GIMME!  Acting like you're the fucking center of the universe is not gonna get you what you want.  Selfish, self-centered, egotistical.  Typical fucking sense of self-entitlement.  Like as if the whole world should just bow to you because you demand it - that it doesn't play by the rules you think it should play by.

And you act as if everything that's wrong is the other guy's fault.  It's not.  The blame lays with people that remain willfully ignorant to the root causes - just like I think other liberals are being willfully ignorant of the root causes of violence in this country!  (Hint hint: it's not just the damn guns.)

You act as if you stand for freedom, but the rhetoric that keeps coming out of the Republican Party keeps sounding like Adolf Hitler's Greatest Hits Collection.

That's not even acting like an asshole.  That's spiteful and unreasonable HATE.

Is that really the person you want to be?  Because that's how you're sounding right now.

I am not accusing you.  I am ASKING YOU.  DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BE THAT WAY?

And don't act like I'm trying to color ALL conservatives with the same brush.  I know that there are the 'Hank Hill' types out there.  They make up the silent majority.  They're the damned decent folks who honestly don't give a shit about your isolationist rhetoric and think you're just being goddamned rude.  They're the ones who are legitimate Christians that actually think that the way Jesus did things is the way you should do things now.  You know, forgiveness and service.

I've already pointed out how we can help the refugees coming to our border, and in turn make it into a net benefit for our country.  And you threw your arms up and quit because you couldn't poke a single fucking hole in my argument.  Or at least, you didn't even try.

Why the xenophobia?  Why the hate?  What the hell are you actually afraid of?

[Labster]

Ouch.  Uh, BlackAeronaut, I've written probably a hundred of those comments right there, and after about thirty of them, I learned to wait a day before posting them.  After thirty more, I learned to hit the delete key when I was done venting, just to save time.

If your goal was to convince someone to change their opinion, then you have failed.  Read this Voxsplanation about why we've become so partisan lately.  There's a fundamental difference in worldview between the positions of the two parties, and you can't just resolve that with an argument or a dare, because that's just not how humans make decisions.

Honestly, I give a lot of time to considering conservative opinions, because of the risk of being wrong.  There are a class of conservative thinkers tend to produce deep truths, like George Will, Bill Kristol, Steve Schmidt, and a few more I'm forgetting.  Of course, the opposite of a shallow truth is false, but the opposite of a deep truth is also true.

See the thing is, you're working off of your underlying assumptions.  But most Trump fans say something about him like, "Finally, someone is telling the truth!"  And most of us in the opposition say, "Trump is a compulsive liar."  The truth is not in the middle; both are true to a great degree.

Like, you're going after Ravjik for well, promoting being an asshole sometimes.  I admit, when I read that the first time, I was thinking, "lol this dude just tanked his own argument."  But you know what, maybe we're just naive?  What if your worldview is that most everyone is an asshole all the time?  That everyone is trying to take everyone else's stuff -- it's why we see crime, and illegal immigration, and all.  So called free trade is just other people attempting to screw us right?  So at least Trump, he's our asshole, fighting for us.  And Trump doesn't attempt to hide that side of himself -- he's the first honest politician we've had in a long time, who doesn't pretend to play nice and cozy up to all of the other assholes in the world.  Communists lie and take your money, but capitalists like Trump earn money in their businesses out in the open.

Except, well, not.  Most of the political innovations of the second half of the twentieth century involved diplomacy and gifts, like the UN and the Marshall Plan.  And I believe that all people are basically good, or would be good if they had the same chances that I had.  If I could, I would completely open the borders of the United States, because after all, a world with open borders would be $78T richer.  Everyone deserves a world without corruption or statelessness or poverty.

But the other side keeps me up at night, too.  I think about the Late Bronze Age Collapse, where the Sea Peoples almost destroyed Western civilization.  Illegal immigrants speaking other languages, stealing shit and killing people was all too fucking real, even if the notion of "illegal" back then mainly meant "people who my asshole king doesn't want."  The conditions are basically happening again right now, with climate change, but into Europe this time.  Systems cannot accept unlimited immigration, nor can society deal with too many unassimilated peoples.

So which way does the moral imperative point?  Protect our own, just like everyone else?  Or offer safety and equality to all, at cost to ourselves?

Given that it's the audience we have here, think back to Sailor Moon S.  Can you understand why Haruka and Michiru think that Usagi is a bleeding-heart liberal who is going to get them all killed with her naïveté?*  Hint: it's because Usagi basically does just that.  She lets Mistress Nine live despite every opportunity to stop the whole thing, and then gets tricked into giving her the freaking Holy Grail.  The whole world almost gets eaten by Cthulhu because Usagi wasn't willing to sacrifice one life, because she was willing to trust her enemy.  Sometimes, you have to be the asshole to protect everyone.

Except well, not really.  Usagi -- and really liberalism as a whole -- relies on eucatastrophe to work.  She only is qualified to be queen when she pulls off a second miracle -- it wasn't just a fluke that they all survived.  But you know, we all believe because we see miracles unfolding all around us -- corruption being reduced, slavery being limited, trade promoting peace and welfare, and people from the most repressive cultures around mysteriously wanting to be more like us.  I know that sounds like a crazy argument, but even liberalism's detractors, like H.P. Lovecraft, saw society as something of a miracle.  To him, it was just something that made life worth living in the face of the uncaring, selfish darkness -- which was most everyone else.

Anyway if you have no idea how someone could be so wrong, or the worst offense I hear from liberals, "How could someone vote against their own interests?", take a step back and look at your assumptions rather than daring people to prove you wrong.  You're not gonna win hearts and minds with that stuff.

* (Conversely, do you understand why the Inner Senshi think that the Outers are cruel and heartless?  Why hurting a child would never be worth the price, because you become the enemy by taking darkness inside yourself?)

[classicdrogn]

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

I am inclined to agree.

Here is a story, for those with patience to read. Others can please skip.

I had just got into my car and started to drive. The windows were open.

I got the smell of shit assailing my nostrils. I was upset and thought that the footpath was perhaps used as a toilet by those too poor to afford a toilet. Such areas do exist in many Indian cities.

I thought after I drive off the smell would go away. After I turned a corner I found the smell continued. I thought this was also another locality like this. I then reached a well-known prosperous locality and the smell still did not leave me.

I realized suddenly what was happening. Yes, the smell was emerging from the soles of my shoes. Unwittingly I had stepped on some shit somewhere before getting into the car and was carrying it with me all over the place.

The realization was sobering. I stopped. Got out. Reached for the bottle of water that I always keep in my car, found a suitable spot and used the water to get the stuff off the soles of my shoe.

The city smelt nice thereafter.

This is where I end up falling in between the right and left and unable to argue for either side, generally - the problems that both hold up and decry are, generally, real and in need of correction, but the causes they attribute them to and/or proposed solutions tend to be things I look at and say, "Are you kidding? That's a cure worse than the disease!" And of course the leaders on either side tend to exemplify something closer to the extremes rather than a moderate position that could actually accept some compromise and get things done in a least-horrible way, because brand identity or something.

Even I'm not immune to that, of course, freedom from religion and mandatory universal firearms safety training being probably my own strongest held extreme positions, but at least I try to be aware of it and not actually shove my agenda in other people's faces. Living up to my .sig here and all, even if "make everyone willing to kill for religion die" is probably my top pick if I had a wish and had to waste it on something in this world instead of a protagonist makeover and transport to a more interesting one. See also the list of reasons I should not be made the philosopher-king, it shares a similar position.

For one last quote by way of a closing statement, something that is attributed to various people and characters in various configurations, but I think this one was formulated by Charles Barkley during an interview:

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Some just stink more than others.

[Rajvik]

That is not a reason to close your borders. That is a reason to go out, share your wealth, and teach people what freedom and democracy actually are.

rob, we tried that, it was referred to in the deleted thread on the caravan coming as "Dollar Diplomacy". We have tried giving them money, it sticks to the kleptocrats pockets, we have tried being supportive and giving them equipment and sending people to help build things like hospitals, schools and wells, and all we ever see from it is a rising tide of immigration from the area. I made a sarcastic remark in another thread about how the only way we would probably ever solve the immigration issue on our southern border would be to annex/invade and conquer everything south to either the Panama Canal or the Darien Swamp. That way all of them could be citizens and we could deal with the problems in an appropriate manner since the Cartels are a significant part of the problem.

there was no follow on comments, i wonder a bit why?

edit: more to follow when i have the time and battery power to respond to BA without being an ass

[hazard]

Rajvik?

If the criminal cartels are a major part of the problem, and if the South American criminal cartels are in large part financed by the sale of cocaine and other drugs in the USA, would it not help considerably to address the US illegal drugs trade?

[classicdrogn]

We tried that, the whole "war on drugs" thing, remember? So very effective it was, too. Why, it had almost as big of an impact as Prohibition!


(non-embedded link)

[hazard]

There's more ways to limit the drug trade than just by arresting everybody dealing and using.

One of the most effective?

Removing the conditions that cause people to use drugs. And surprisingly, that means getting rid of things that cause people anxiety. Things like the fear that you will starve, or be without a home, or that if you get sick you will not be able to afford medical care, or that you will be fired, or that you will be isolated, or that you get beaten, or robbed, or killed.

Among first world nations the USA is one of if not outright the most prolific user of drugs. And its lack of a solid social security system as well as deep seated racism and classism appear to be a major cause for this.