|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 13:56:53 GMT
And OK, last thing! (At least for now.) Another of those little closing thoughts...
The Bidens. I don't know whether the Bidens were involved in corruption with Burisma. I know I'm supposed to, because all good Democrats know it's a conspiracy theory and all good Republicans know it's a leftist conspiracy to bury the corruption. But being a real person, I only know those two party lines, not the underlying reality.
I do doubt that Ukraine (Burisma or otherwise) had any particular influence on behalf of the Clinton campaign, or hiding servers, etc., and if they did, it's close to moot anyway since she lost. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't some corruption involving some segments of the United States, including potentially the Bidens. (It also doesn't mean there was.)
My point is this: it seems to me that a big part of the rightness or wrongness of the president's behavior (even assuming that he did withhold funds until an investigation--we'll take that at face value here) is whether there was underlying corruption. So I think the topic warranted a lot more discussion along with all of this over the past few months. Why were we expected to take at face value the two polar opposite positions without any public discussion of it?
Lastly, a related but tangential thing: Hunter Biden's job with Burisma is a symbol of something that permeates the world, not just politics, and it's gross. Of course Hunter Biden got that job because Burisma thought his connections and influence would help them (whether corrupt or just convenient). He himself basically acknowledged it when interviewed as this blew up. And he's just one of many. Democrats, if they are truly the party of the common man, ought not be so willing to go to the mat for the likes of Hunter Biden.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 31, 2020 13:57:25 GMT
There is somebody else who is also going to have to accept some accountability for this farce - Nancy Pelosi. At the beginning, Pelosi correctly repeated that she didn't want to go ahead with impeachment proceedings for a few reasons, the main one being that she didn't think a partisan impeachment was desirable. Then, in my opinion, Schiff and Nadler and others "got to her" and wore her down. That's no excuse, but I wish she would've stuck to her initial instincts.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 14:01:29 GMT
Forget "some accountability"! Without question, she's ultimately responsible. She kowtowed to the wing of her party that she doesn't care for (and realistically that doesn't care for her), she went against her better political judgment, and she allowed what looks to be a losing effort.
The only question is the same as it ever was: will it be a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans in November, where their acquittal costs them, or will it be a full defeat and rejection of the Democrats, leading to four more years of an even more Trump-centered Republican party that owns the presidency and the Senate?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 31, 2020 14:17:31 GMT
And OK, last thing! (At least for now.) Another of those little closing thoughts...
The Bidens. I don't know whether the Bidens were involved in corruption with Burisma. I know I'm supposed to, because all good Democrats know it's a conspiracy theory and all good Republicans know it's a leftist conspiracy to bury the corruption. But being a real person, I only know those two party lines, not the underlying reality.
I do doubt that Ukraine (Burisma or otherwise) had any particular influence on behalf of the Clinton campaign, or hiding servers, etc., and if they did, it's close to moot anyway since she lost. But that doesn't mean that there wasn't some corruption involving some segments of the United States, including potentially the Bidens. (It also doesn't mean there was.)
My point is this: it seems to me that a big part of the rightness or wrongness of the president's behavior (even assuming that he did withhold funds until an investigation--we'll take that at face value here) is whether there was underlying corruption. So I think the topic warranted a lot more discussion along with all of this over the past few months. Why were we expected to take at face value the two polar opposite positions without any public discussion of it?
Lastly, a related but tangential thing: Hunter Biden's job with Burisma is a symbol of something that permeates the world, not just politics, and it's gross. Of course Hunter Biden got that job because Burisma thought his connections and influence would help them (whether corrupt or just convenient). He himself basically acknowledged it when interviewed as this blew up. And he's just one of many. Democrats, if they are truly the party of the common man, ought not be so willing to go to the mat for the likes of Hunter Biden.
When I think about the Biden(s's) issue, I just keep applying the word/term "irony".
It's ironic that, even though Trump was nailed for the quid pro quo with the Biden corruption issue, he was probably right about the Biden's corruption! And it's also ironic (and hypocritical) that, while Schiff and Co. pressed the "no witnesses allowed issue" in the senate, they (the Democrats themselves) didn't want Joe and Hunter near a witness stand. Schiff wanted it both ways. In the end, in keeping the Bidens away, it made Joe and Hunter actually appear more corrupt. Schiff tried relentlessly to keep the attention ON Trump and OFF the Bidens.
Schiff's main case was to prosecute Trump's attempt to expose the Bidens. In the end, Trump ironically succeeded somewhat in exposing the Bidens, thanks to Schiff. The more Schiff tried to nail Trump for it, the more he dragged out the proceedings, the more the Bidens got exposed.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 31, 2020 14:25:38 GMT
The only question is the same as it ever was: will it be a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans in November, where their acquittal costs them, or will it be a full defeat and rejection of the Democrats, leading to four more years of an even more Trump-centered Republican party that owns the presidency and the Senate?
While I think Trump will win re-election, I think the effects of the impeachment proceeding will be a wash. For every voter that votes against Trump for what he did with the Ukraine, there will be another voter who votes for Trump just to pay the Democrats back for what they did.
It might be more interesting to see how the next elections pan out in the Senate and House Of Representatives.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 14:27:18 GMT
"Exposed" is a good word--again without saying the Bidens were involved in outright corruption or anything necessarily illegal--because it calls to mind Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis's famous statement that exposure to sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Exposure, a full public vetting, is the best way for us as a country to know whether the Bidens were acting corruptly in Ukraine. Exposure, a full public vetting, is the best way for us to know what the president was trying to do. Both sides agreed with one or the other of those two views, but ironically (to use your word) neither side seemed to agree with both. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 14:34:37 GMT
The only question is the same as it ever was: will it be a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans in November, where their acquittal costs them, or will it be a full defeat and rejection of the Democrats, leading to four more years of an even more Trump-centered Republican party that owns the presidency and the Senate?
While I think Trump will win re-election, I think the effects of the impeachment proceeding will be a wash. For every voter that votes against Trump for what he did with the Ukraine, there will be another voter who votes for Trump just to pay the Democrats back for what they did.
It might be more interesting to see how the next elections pan out in the Senate and House Of Representatives.
See, I think you're exactly right about the presidency (except I'm closer to 50-50 on Trump's chances), which is why I think the Dershowitz defense was irrelevant.
You're definitely right about the Congress. That's where the action will be. If Trump wins re-election and Democrats keep the House (likely) and win the Senate (definitely possible, and arguably likely), it's going to be a very interesting and--for those of us interested in governance more than politics--frustrating four years.
At best, it will be like the last six years of the Obama presidency, with a Congress dedicated to stifling the president's agenda and the president opting to push executive power even further. (That scenario is like food poisoning for me, I hate it so much.) And at worst, it's just going to be another round of impeachment hearings.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 31, 2020 14:40:45 GMT
What will be interesting to see is if Trump lets this Biden/Ukraine thing rest. Probably not. Trump doesn't have it in him, emotionally or politically. Like I posted above, ironically, in the end, Trump got his point across about the Bidens and dirtied them up pretty good - even without the Ukraine's help.
And then there's Rudy Giuliani. Rudy has stockpiled piles and piles of information on the Bidens, and you know Trump would love to use it. Giuliani's probably pushing to get it released, and Trump is probably chomping at the bit to use it in the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 14:45:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2020 15:25:32 GMT
OK, and now my positivity ends. Thanks, Washington Post!
UC-Berkeley made an informational handout about coronavirus, and more specifically about dealing with anxiety and fears about it. Under "Common Reactions," nestled right alongside things like "feeling helplessness" and "hyper-vigilence to your health and body," was "Xenophobia: fears about interacting with those who might be from Asia and guilt about these feelings."
The reaction, largely online, basically cried that by calling xenophobia a normal reaction to a disease (from a specific place), Berkeley was "normalizing racism." Berkeley, of course, apologized.
But the thing is, I don't think the handout did what its critics say it did. The handout wasn't saying "these are the reactions you ought to have," but rather "these are the reactions you might have." In other words, "these reactions are normal." Not admirable. Not to be sought. But not surprising. And it's true: look at major outbreaks of disease throughout history and how often immigrants or specific ethnic groups are blamed. I'd say it's in the neighborhood of every single time.
The handout actually immediately addresses and provides some context: "fears about interacting with those who might be from Asia and guilt about these feelings." In other words, "don't be surprised if you, despite yourself, find yourself feeling in a way that you don't want to feel."
It is akin to saying that if someone commits a crime against your family member, you might have feelings of violence against that person, or people you identify with that person. Now, you know that you shouldn't commit that violence. You aren't going to commit that violence. You might feel bad for even thinking about committing violence. But it is normal to feel that way.
Or it is akin to an adolescent straight guy who sees a beautiful woman. Guess what his normal feeling is going to be? [Censored because let's be honest, it is not ok.] Get the picture? The normal feeling doesn't correspond to the acceptable or preferred action.
Normal doesn't mean preferred, acceptable, ideal. It just means "to be expected," or "typical." It is absolutely typical to feel xenophobia about a certain group if some disease has originated among that group. Then, the reaction should be to back off that feeling, to consider logically how the disease works, how to cure and prevent it, etc. But it is normal to feel it.
Let's not pretend that unacceptable or unwanted feelings are therefore not normal. They're OFTEN normal.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 3, 2020 0:28:46 GMT
SJS, here is exactly what I think you have been saying (and I know I have been thinking or saying) as the unfortunate seemingly new normal. Sen. Ernst strongly implied that if Joe Biden wins the presidency, Republicans would immediately push to impeach.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 3, 2020 13:12:19 GMT
SJS, here is exactly what I think you have been saying (and I know I have been thinking or saying) as the unfortunate seemingly new normal. Sen. Ernst strongly implied that if Joe Biden wins the presidency, Republicans would immediately push to impeach.
Yes, these recent impeachment proceedings set a dangerous precedent and opened - pick a cliche' - a Pandora's Box or the genie is out of the bottle or whatever. However, in reality, the splits between the parties were already there. The impeachment proceedings just brought them to the forefront in a huge way. The next time a party controls the House and the Senate...oh boy.
|
|
|
Post by The Cincinnati Kid on Feb 5, 2020 0:28:47 GMT
About 24 hours after the Iowa caucus and we have, uh, 62% of the results so far. Not a good look for the party.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 5, 2020 0:34:49 GMT
About 24 hours after the Iowa caucus and we have, uh, 62% of the results so far. Not a good look for the party. No, it really isn't. But you know what occurred to me this morning? I was driving in to work and had on NPR, which had the obligatory reporters in Iowa for a live show (oooh, in a real-live Iowan coffee shop with real-live Iowans!). And they were treating the lack of results as if the sky were falling. My first thought was, "shit, this is going to be ammo for ending the Iowa-goes-first tradition."
Sure enough, by midmorning, I was seeing articles all over mainstream press that IT IS TIME TO END IOWA FIRST (the sky is falling).
But my thought in the car was, wait, who cares? What is the actual harm here? The only actual harm was to journalists, who were counting on this for their storylines today. The information hasn't been hacked, lost, or altered. Nobody thought for a second we wouldn't get the information we need. The election is nine months away. We're fine. Nothing happened.
Nothing happened.
But the issue is, the entertainment industry temporarily lost its intended storylines. A delay. A minor inconvenience. It's actually funny when you think about it.
It doesn't matter at all.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 5, 2020 0:37:22 GMT
About 24 hours after the Iowa caucus and we have, uh, 62% of the results so far. Not a good look for the party. There are some people saying that Donald Trump is the winner of the Iowa caucuses.
And, speaking of the impeached President, his State Of The Union address will be given in about an hour. I wonder if he'll mention the Beach Boys' concert?
|
|