4 ms·

> Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash. It depends which type of Republicans, right now it loo

> Republicans will get back to power sooner or later and I think we should expect a regulatory backlash. It depends which type of Republicans, right now it looks like the party is de facto split in two. Even though today's vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can't explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment.

ABeeSea 6y ago
Rep Swalwell (member of intelligence and judiciary committees) said on msnbc today that several republicans lawmakers told him they would vote no because they feared for their and their family’s safety. The Republican Party is afraid that Trump’s base will murder republicans who turn against Trump.
cm2187 6y ago
I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.
- jfim 6y ago
  > I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Impeachment may prevent him from running again: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-can-lawmakers-use-impeachment-to-bar-trump-from-holding-office-again-idUSKBN29H1A8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-exp...
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're discharged, I don't think the military would/should say "well you're so close to leaving, so we'll still give you an honorary discharge and a pension." I feel like the same concept applies here, otherwise we're opening the door to the president being able to commit impeachable offenses with impunity as long as they're close to the finish line. Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk.
  - alasdair_ 6y ago
    >Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. I doubt it. Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it.
    - mullingitover 6y ago
      > Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it. I know this part is true. However, and again I'm not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal?
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > However, and again I’m not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal? It is, but even if they use the name of a crime or tort, Congress isn’t bound to apply the same definitions or rules of evidence as a court of law, and the decisions of the Senate in an impeachment trial can’t be entered as evidence of the facts found by the Senate in a civil case the way a criminal conviction can. So, while the trial (regardless of outcome) may generate a potential trove of free-for-others-to-use evidence, I don’t think a Senate conviction (or acquittal, for that matter) has much direct bearing on future civil litigation.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. No, unlike a criminal conviction, I don’t think it would. OTOH, any evidence gathered and publicly presented against Trump in the impeachment trial could be a valuable gift to those with substantially-related civil claims.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever. In other words he couldn't run again in 2024.
  - masonic 6y ago
    Alcee Hastings was impeached, convicted, and yet became a Congressman quickly after.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever. Not inherently, but presumably (as it is the only remedy left, and apparently requires only a majority vote after conviction) the Senate would adopt the forward ban allowed by the Constitution if it convicted.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) Trump has already been impeached the second time (it didn’t happen after he left office.) Conviction after he left office would be limited to a lifetime bar on future office (assuming it is legal at all, but I suspect that were it challenged it would be found to be), but the main purpose would arguably not be the actual disability to Trump, but drawing a line of accountability for Presidents in general. (Politically, it would also be an opportunity for some Republicans to concretely distance themselves from Trump, which they may see as beneficial for future elections.)
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    He could potentially also lose his pension. Given how strapped he is right now, this could be quite painful for him.
rayiner 6y ago
It doesn’t matter who wins, they’re united on that point. They’ve seen the power of the platforms to filter the information people get and the willingness of the folks who control it to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Democrats.
- tptacek 6y ago
  No. Conservative thought absolutely rofltstomps on Facebook and is all over Twitter, which was, until a few days ago and by his own choice Trump's most important media venue. Conservative thought is so prevalent on Youtube that people post videos of the insane PragerU stuff their 8 year olds get recommended after watching a video or two. There's really only two things that have reliably gotten people booted from any of these platforms: * Appeals to violence * Overt KKK-grade bigotry I've been watching the "alternative" platforms for the last couple years. It got boring last year when it was looking increasingly like one of the major two, the one accurately described as "one of the less popular Mastodon instances", was simply going to fold --- the bot posts were outnumbering the real ones. That's because all the conservatives were on Twitter and Facebook, and they still are.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    This kind of comment suggests that you are completely devoid of conservative perspective. When people respond to complaints of biased moderation by saying that social media is full of conservatives, they haven't heard the complaint. The fact that you call PragerU "insane" seems to further support that. Even though I find that it's rare for folks on the left to understand what's happening on the right, I'm surprised that even you are so misinformed about what gets people booted. Appeals to violence and "KKK-grade bigotry" are not what these complaints are about, and don't even approach the correct universe in describing the types of folks getting moderated (although hate speech should be allowed IMO). Not only that, but twitter is chock full of appeals to violence, which, as long as it's directed at conservatives, has remarkable staying power compared to anything directed elsewhere. It's worth watching some of the opposing folks that you've been taught to hate once in a while, even if just to keep abreast of the concerns being discussed. Otherwise, all you get are the distorted caricatures of the fringes.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Even though today’s vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can’t explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment. Personal fear of the people whose affection for Trump led them to erect a gallows and storm the Capitol with weapons, restraints, etc., screaming “Hang Mike Pence!” when Pence merely wouldn’t steal an election for him could also be a factor. While I think it would be cowardly to withhold action on that basis, I don’t think anyone in their position could fail to have significant fear that betraying the GOP base by supporting impeachment would be painting a giant target on themselves for violent domestic extremists who are often more even more hostile to betrayal from “their side” than they are to the other side (to whom they are plenty hostile to start with.)

ABeeSea 6y ago

Rep Swalwell (member of intelligence and judiciary committees) said on msnbc today that several republicans lawmakers told him they would vote no because they feared for their and their family’s safety. The Republican Party is afraid that Trump’s base will murder republicans who turn against Trump.

cm2187 6y ago

I think Trump has become radioactive, even within the republican party. They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) but I doubt a come back is on anyone’s mind at this stage. But Trump’s electorate will remain however.

jfim 6y ago
> I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Impeachment may prevent him from running again: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-explainer/explainer-can-lawmakers-use-impeachment-to-bar-trump-from-holding-office-again-idUSKBN29H1A8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-exp...
mullingitover 6y ago
> I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office If a military officer commits a felony offense the week before they're discharged, I don't think the military would/should say "well you're so close to leaving, so we'll still give you an honorary discharge and a pension." I feel like the same concept applies here, otherwise we're opening the door to the president being able to commit impeachable offenses with impunity as long as they're close to the finish line. Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. I doubt it. Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > Congress can impeach for almost anything - it doesn't have to be anything illegal - they just need to have enough votes for it. I know this part is true. However, and again I'm not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > However, and again I’m not a lawyer, but I think inciting an insurrection is actually illegal? It is, but even if they use the name of a crime or tort, Congress isn’t bound to apply the same definitions or rules of evidence as a court of law, and the decisions of the Senate in an impeachment trial can’t be entered as evidence of the facts found by the Senate in a civil case the way a criminal conviction can. So, while the trial (regardless of outcome) may generate a potential trove of free-for-others-to-use evidence, I don’t think a Senate conviction (or acquittal, for that matter) has much direct bearing on future civil litigation.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Also, not a lawyer, but I feel like conviction after impeachment would make conviction in subsequent civil suits a slam dunk. No, unlike a criminal conviction, I don’t think it would. OTOH, any evidence gathered and publicly presented against Trump in the impeachment trial could be a valuable gift to those with substantially-related civil claims.
alasdair_ 6y ago
>I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever. In other words he couldn't run again in 2024.
- masonic 6y ago
  Alcee Hastings was impeached, convicted, and yet became a Congressman quickly after.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Doing so bans the person from holding federal office forever. Not inherently, but presumably (as it is the only remedy left, and apparently requires only a majority vote after conviction) the Senate would adopt the forward ban allowed by the Constitution if it convicted.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 6y ago
> They may not want to impeach (and I am not sure what is the point of impeaching a president after he left office) Trump has already been impeached the second time (it didn’t happen after he left office.) Conviction after he left office would be limited to a lifetime bar on future office (assuming it is legal at all, but I suspect that were it challenged it would be found to be), but the main purpose would arguably not be the actual disability to Trump, but drawing a line of accountability for Presidents in general. (Politically, it would also be an opportunity for some Republicans to concretely distance themselves from Trump, which they may see as beneficial for future elections.)
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  He could potentially also lose his pension. Given how strapped he is right now, this could be quite painful for him.

rayiner 6y ago

It doesn’t matter who wins, they’re united on that point. They’ve seen the power of the platforms to filter the information people get and the willingness of the folks who control it to put a thumb on the scale in favor of Democrats.

tptacek 6y ago
No. Conservative thought absolutely rofltstomps on Facebook and is all over Twitter, which was, until a few days ago and by his own choice Trump's most important media venue. Conservative thought is so prevalent on Youtube that people post videos of the insane PragerU stuff their 8 year olds get recommended after watching a video or two. There's really only two things that have reliably gotten people booted from any of these platforms: * Appeals to violence * Overt KKK-grade bigotry I've been watching the "alternative" platforms for the last couple years. It got boring last year when it was looking increasingly like one of the major two, the one accurately described as "one of the less popular Mastodon instances", was simply going to fold --- the bot posts were outnumbering the real ones. That's because all the conservatives were on Twitter and Facebook, and they still are.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  This kind of comment suggests that you are completely devoid of conservative perspective. When people respond to complaints of biased moderation by saying that social media is full of conservatives, they haven't heard the complaint. The fact that you call PragerU "insane" seems to further support that. Even though I find that it's rare for folks on the left to understand what's happening on the right, I'm surprised that even you are so misinformed about what gets people booted. Appeals to violence and "KKK-grade bigotry" are not what these complaints are about, and don't even approach the correct universe in describing the types of folks getting moderated (although hate speech should be allowed IMO). Not only that, but twitter is chock full of appeals to violence, which, as long as it's directed at conservatives, has remarkable staying power compared to anything directed elsewhere. It's worth watching some of the opposing folks that you've been taught to hate once in a while, even if just to keep abreast of the concerns being discussed. Otherwise, all you get are the distorted caricatures of the fringes.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Even though today’s vote showed that they still think the Trump side will win out in the medium to long term, otherwise I can’t explain why they chose to face the media storm directly and voted against impeachment. Personal fear of the people whose affection for Trump led them to erect a gallows and storm the Capitol with weapons, restraints, etc., screaming “Hang Mike Pence!” when Pence merely wouldn’t steal an election for him could also be a factor. While I think it would be cowardly to withhold action on that basis, I don’t think anyone in their position could fail to have significant fear that betraying the GOP base by supporting impeachment would be painting a giant target on themselves for violent domestic extremists who are often more even more hostile to betrayal from “their side” than they are to the other side (to whom they are plenty hostile to start with.)