2 ms·

Almost as if... it's basically a party-line vote. Which is exactly what I've been saying since my first comment in this thread. Why are we even discussing this?

Almost as if... it's basically a party-line vote. Which is exactly what I've been saying since my first comment in this thread. Why are we even discussing this? You keep proving my point by bringing it back to party lines. Trump was impeached on a near-perfect party line vote. Clinton was impeached, 2.5% away from being a perfect party line vote. It's virtually always a party line vote when it's a question of which president should have which power and get away with what.

shadowgovt 7y ago
I don't think "virtually always parties" is a useful observation if it has little predictive power, and I don't think one can make predictions on a three-data-point event. But on the other topic (apples to oranges comparison): it's possible for both votes to be party-line regardless of the fact pattern if one party is corrupt and just always votes to maximize party power independent of fact patterns, and the fact pattern would induce a more objective juror to vote one way in one case and the other way in the other case. (The difference would be one would anticipate were a Democrat to do what Trump did, they'd be roundly impeached and convicted).
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  "little predictive power". Okay. Within 2 votes, the senate's verdict will be in favor of Trump, 55-45. "1 of 2 parties is just corrupt" lol ok
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Do you disagree that the scenario I described would explain the voting pattern or that one of the two parties is corrupt?
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      I disagree that any vote on the matter of how much power the executive should have, or if any specific executive should be punished for an abuse of that power, would fall along anything other than party lines, with those in the same party as the current executive voting in his or her favor.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Ah, okay. So at least one of the two parties is corrupt.
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Yes, and I think both. The Republicans aren't the only ones that put party above principal in votes. I mean ask a Democratic official why they oppose the electoral college, and then ask if they would support getting rid of superdelegates in the primary. And look at the reactions to Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote in the impeachment. Absolute furor that she broke party lines and subsequent exclusion from debates.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Are you aware of anybody asking them, or is that a hypothetical?
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        I'm sick of waiting for the reply button to show up and I'm heading out for the day. But it's not hypothetical. My state voted to give our electoral college votes to the popular vote a few years back. I emailed all the state representatives and got canned emails back along party lines, some explaining how anything but direct democracy causes people's voices to not be heard. I asked the Democrats if they would support a proposal to eliminate superdelegates in the primaries, and I didn't get any responses. I've asked two directly at various events, one told me "I'm not concerned about that particular issue" and the other one told me that they've already made the opinion on that clear (I never found where and was asked by an usher to move back for other questions). Don't know how or if they voted when the party eventually did change that, but I have little hope that asking them questions in the future would mean anything.

shadowgovt 7y ago

I don't think "virtually always parties" is a useful observation if it has little predictive power, and I don't think one can make predictions on a three-data-point event. But on the other topic (apples to oranges comparison): it's possible for both votes to be party-line regardless of the fact pattern if one party is corrupt and just always votes to maximize party power independent of fact patterns, and the fact pattern would induce a more objective juror to vote one way in one case and the other way in the other case. (The difference would be one would anticipate were a Democrat to do what Trump did, they'd be roundly impeached and convicted).

TallGuyShort 7y ago
"little predictive power". Okay. Within 2 votes, the senate's verdict will be in favor of Trump, 55-45. "1 of 2 parties is just corrupt" lol ok
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Do you disagree that the scenario I described would explain the voting pattern or that one of the two parties is corrupt?
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    I disagree that any vote on the matter of how much power the executive should have, or if any specific executive should be punished for an abuse of that power, would fall along anything other than party lines, with those in the same party as the current executive voting in his or her favor.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Ah, okay. So at least one of the two parties is corrupt.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Yes, and I think both. The Republicans aren't the only ones that put party above principal in votes. I mean ask a Democratic official why they oppose the electoral college, and then ask if they would support getting rid of superdelegates in the primary. And look at the reactions to Tulsi Gabbard's "present" vote in the impeachment. Absolute furor that she broke party lines and subsequent exclusion from debates.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Are you aware of anybody asking them, or is that a hypothetical?
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        I'm sick of waiting for the reply button to show up and I'm heading out for the day. But it's not hypothetical. My state voted to give our electoral college votes to the popular vote a few years back. I emailed all the state representatives and got canned emails back along party lines, some explaining how anything but direct democracy causes people's voices to not be heard. I asked the Democrats if they would support a proposal to eliminate superdelegates in the primaries, and I didn't get any responses. I've asked two directly at various events, one told me "I'm not concerned about that particular issue" and the other one told me that they've already made the opinion on that clear (I never found where and was asked by an usher to move back for other questions). Don't know how or if they voted when the party eventually did change that, but I have little hope that asking them questions in the future would mean anything.