6 ms·

Whether or not the occupant has just been impeached for leveraging public assets against political enemies seems to also be a relevant factor.

by sehugg 7y ago

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Even that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway.
- bduerst 7y ago
  >Even that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway. The non-partisan GAO seems to disagree: https://apnews.com/9127109f325778490fd40c5f98be1817 https://apnews.com/9127109f325778490fd40c5f98be1817
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    That's somewhat irrelevant to the question of what people's opinions are of the power the president should have though, isn't it. I'm not defending Trump, I'm saying that D's are currently arguing he shouldn't have power that they would be happy to see exercised if it wasn't an R in office.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Sure, if this had precedence. Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? This is the question that non-partisan people are considering.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        >> Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? Absolutely and immediately, once convicted, but that hasn't happened. And to emphasize my point about party lines - how much do you want to bet it won't happen? But let's be clear that my first comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not saying the president ACTUALLY has more power depending on the party. I'm saying that things people were fine with under Obama are suddenly a problem under Trump. And I will expect the same thing next time there's a Democrat in office - suddenly Republicans will flip-flop on the way the office is supposed to operate. edit: Maybe a more appropriate question is, among people who label themselves as "Democrat" and "Republican", who thinks that Trump should lose power after his impeachment, who also thinks that Clinton should have lost power after his impeachment?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since one of them was impeached for lying to a grand jury (about a topic that was outside the scope of the investigation and more than a little irrelevant to any questions of high crimes and misdemeanors) and another was impeached for abuse of the power of his office to solicit aid from a foreign country in collecting damaging information on a political rival. Intent and outcomes matter if the question is "Should this person lose power?"
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        That's my whole point. Increasingly, people's idea of the rule of law is their subjective opinion of this person. Trump could have been impeached for the exact same offense, and 99% of people opinions of what should happen next wouldn't change.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        I believe if Trump were impeached for the same offense, with the same fact pattern, your assertion is not true. The offenses and fact patterns in question are quite different in these two cases.
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        So you think the majority-Republican Senate might actually convict?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Oh, absolutely not, because they don't think the way I do. The GOP has made it clear in this generation they care about power to rule and very little else; not their legacy, not the stability of the US government long-term, not quid pro quo or fair play. They seem to see their situation as one of existential threat, and they're operating as if the moment they lose control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time they will cease to exist as a political party.

Whether or not the occupant has just been impeached for leveraging public assets against political enemies seems to also be a relevant factor.

by sehugg 7y ago

Whether or not the occupant has just been impeached for leveraging public assets against political enemies seems to also be a relevant factor.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

Even that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway.

bduerst 7y ago
>Even that seems to 100% be prior party lines anyway. The non-partisan GAO seems to disagree: https://apnews.com/9127109f325778490fd40c5f98be1817 https://apnews.com/9127109f325778490fd40c5f98be1817
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  That's somewhat irrelevant to the question of what people's opinions are of the power the president should have though, isn't it. I'm not defending Trump, I'm saying that D's are currently arguing he shouldn't have power that they would be happy to see exercised if it wasn't an R in office.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Sure, if this had precedence. Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? This is the question that non-partisan people are considering.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      >> Would you say illegal actions taken by the president are relevant to whether they should continue to have power? Absolutely and immediately, once convicted, but that hasn't happened. And to emphasize my point about party lines - how much do you want to bet it won't happen? But let's be clear that my first comment was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not saying the president ACTUALLY has more power depending on the party. I'm saying that things people were fine with under Obama are suddenly a problem under Trump. And I will expect the same thing next time there's a Democrat in office - suddenly Republicans will flip-flop on the way the office is supposed to operate. edit: Maybe a more appropriate question is, among people who label themselves as "Democrat" and "Republican", who thinks that Trump should lose power after his impeachment, who also thinks that Clinton should have lost power after his impeachment?
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        It's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since one of them was impeached for lying to a grand jury (about a topic that was outside the scope of the investigation and more than a little irrelevant to any questions of high crimes and misdemeanors) and another was impeached for abuse of the power of his office to solicit aid from a foreign country in collecting damaging information on a political rival. Intent and outcomes matter if the question is "Should this person lose power?"
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        That's my whole point. Increasingly, people's idea of the rule of law is their subjective opinion of this person. Trump could have been impeached for the exact same offense, and 99% of people opinions of what should happen next wouldn't change.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        I believe if Trump were impeached for the same offense, with the same fact pattern, your assertion is not true. The offenses and fact patterns in question are quite different in these two cases.
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        So you think the majority-Republican Senate might actually convict?
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Oh, absolutely not, because they don't think the way I do. The GOP has made it clear in this generation they care about power to rule and very little else; not their legacy, not the stability of the US government long-term, not quid pro quo or fair play. They seem to see their situation as one of existential threat, and they're operating as if the moment they lose control of Congress and the Presidency at the same time they will cease to exist as a political party.