Displaying 601 To 630 Of 19,504 Comments Missouri Joins The Club: Legislature Passes Very Restrictive Abortion Bill The SCOTUS has made many rulings that have proven to be flawed and rejected later in history. The problem with Roe is also a problem with the Constitution which didn’t properly deal with the issue of white male domination over black people, women, etc. So the Burger Court used the right to privacy to actually address the issue of equality and self-determination. It’s imperfect but most Americans are grateful Roe was decided the way it was. They used the tools they had to right a wrong but the wrong is not as much about taking away a woman’s privacy as it is about government claiming sovereignty over women, reducing them to a dominated, lower class of citizen. Perhaps if the ERA ever passed, the SCOTUS would have another constitutional tool (or obstacle, in the case of anti-abortion conservatives on the SCOTUS). As it is, we’re following determinations by the Burger SCOTUS on states rights over abortion which clearly is not working today anyway. This may be a little tangent but calling back to another proposition of mine, if The Roberts Court guts or destroys Roe, it will be a massive argument to support a Dem Congress and President in 2021, expanding the SCOTUS to dilute the power of the extremists that shouldn’t be there in the first place and solidify support for Roe, the VRA, overturning Citizens United and gerrymandering and more. » Posted By AdLib On May 16, 2019 @ 10:01 pm I do think we agree on nearly all of this though I don’t think government should have rights over a woman’s body in any case. The way it looks to me, there is only one actual person involved in the situation de facto, the woman who is pregnant, so government has no right to decide for her at 20 weeks or later, if she should remain pregnant. That is her body, not the government’s and aside from these asinine new laws which we both agree are outrageous, an embryo or a fetus are not “persons” who are separate from the woman, they are part of her. There is no “person” for government to represent and extremist laws trying to declare a fertilized egg a person won’t stand. The facts are that the majority of abortions, over 90%, happen in the first trimester anyway so late term abortion is not a pervasive problem, it is rare (only 1.4% occur after 21 weeks). https://www.vox.com/2019/5/16/18628002/abortion-ohio-alabama-georgia-law-bill-details And I think the woman is in the most pertinent position to make a decision to go ahead or not with her own pregnancy. There are many unfortunate ongoing instances of women losing their pregnancy unwillingly after 21 weeks too so just because a fetus may be officially determined viable at an approximate point, it doesn’t mean all fetuses at that same point are viable or will be born. So how can they be “persons” when they’ve never been born, right? Which brings me back to the motivations as to why these laws are pushed so aggressively by “Christian” men in power. They want to re-establish dominance over women and resent their independence. I think you’d agree that these hypocrites don’t really care about “life”, they are happy with arming the country for mass murder on a regular basis, they oppose health care to keep babies alive after they’re born or government helping those same babies they want to legislate into existence, with having sufficient food or living in a safe non-cancerous environment. Which is why I focus on their hidden motivations. Anti-abortion is not really about life, it’s about that segment of phony “Christian” men and cult-like women betraying most women, who are insecure, prejudiced and liars, wanting to use the power of the state to enforce their cultish beliefs. Only 18% of the nation supports banning abortion: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Stealing away these rights are not supported by the majority of the American people, let alone a vast majority of American women. I doubt these laws will accomplish their goals in the end but they are unleashing a new momentum among women to confront and take down these chauvinists and their party of oppression, the GOP. » Posted By AdLib On May 16, 2019 @ 9:34 pm Murph, I appreciate your sharing your POV on this issue. As you said, people can get very upset when they hear an opinion on abortion with which they disagree. I do disagree with you a little on this but we primarily agree. It seems to me that the root of this religion-based fervor to strip women of choices over their own bodies is rooted in chauvinism. It is always so-called “Christian” men who dominate the push to outlaw abortion and “Christian” men who oppose equal rights and equal pay for women. This appears based on one central theory of the RW “Christians”, women should be subservient to men. Women should be a vessel for men to have babies and vessels don’t get to choose what they’re used for. No one despises the concept of feminism and women’s rights more than “Christian” men. There are the RW women who march lockstep with the men in supporting their domination of women but IMO, they come across more like brainwashed cult members. What is unnerving is to see how the Republican state governments have all been conspiring together to try and stab women’s rights in the heart simultaneously and in an orchestrated assault. No wonder Republicans in Congress voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act, it conflicted with their plans. » Posted By AdLib On May 16, 2019 @ 2:07 pm I Want The Next President To Be Like Our Best Presidents: 5 Key Lessons Murph, I think the five qualities you list for our next president are very solid. The upside is that I think most of the Democrats who have the best chance of winning the nomination are capable of touching most if not all of the bases. As to each of the qualities you list: 1. The Dem field is brimming with brilliant people. Some like Warren have shared a very detailed vision of where they would take the country and how and others are building on central issues to encompass much more. 2. Pragmatism is important but optimism can go a long way too. Candidates can have long term visions and see themselves as bring the country a step along that way, we need that kind of big thinking too. I remember when the majority opinion towards Obama was that the ACA was a great vision but unlikely to happen. Even his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, tried to convince him after they lost the Senate supermajority, to give up on it. He accomplished its passage despite the pragmatic voices that said it couldn’t happen. While there are grander aspirations like Medicare For All that would probably take multiple presidencies to come to fruition, taking a step towards that, like having it as a public option, would reflect both pragmatism and optimism. 3. It sure seems like the choice in 2020 will be between division and unity. I can’t see any Dem not running on the theme of bringing the country together. Meanwhile Trump will be screaming about invasions of brown people raping and killing white people. That choice should be very straightforward. 4. Even the most detestable presidents, like Trump and Nixon, had a strong personal connection with their voters. I think this is kind of a built in thing for anyone who wins the presidency. In order to attract strong support from the people, there already has to be a personal connection. If not, you have a much less enthusiastic voting base and depressed turnout…which would likely deny that person the presidency. So whoever wins the Dem primary will have already demonstrated that kind of connection with voters. 5.Here too, the contrast couldn’t be clearer. Trust is not something Trump is even acquainted with. The Dem in 2020 will no doubt run on the contrast between Trump’s lies and untrustworthiness with their commitment to being forthright and trustworthy. This is an argument that Trump can’t win. And as the old saying goes, the best leaders follow the lead of the people. What is surprising is how the Republicans have now abandoned even the pretense of reflecting any of these traits in their party and leadership. So it will be a pretty stark difference for voters in 2020. I know that the rabid Trump voters are beyond reasoning, they are as devoid of ethics as their leader and won’t be looking to support such values over the validation of their prejudices. But as polls continue to show, I think a majority of Americans want the Trump nightmare to be over and will be supporting a Dem candidate to return wisdom, honesty, compassion and respect to the Oval Office. » Posted By AdLib On May 1, 2019 @ 4:26 pm TOCB, in addition, Mueller makes very clear that “collusion” isn’t a thing that he was investigating. There is no crime called “collusion”, it’s just a non-criminal term the Trump and his cronies have been programming into the heads of the public and press for years to have a straw man they could knock down then claim victory. There is conspiracy though, a very difficult to prove charge that is a crime and requires proof that two parties coordinated a crime together. What Mueller appears to be saying in his report is that he didn’t have sufficient evidence or smoking guns to prove that Trump’s campaign explicitly conspired with Russia but he does state that Trump welcomed the criminal interference of Russia to harm the election and push it towards Trump. Meanwhile, Barr lied massively in his letter and press conference when he declared that Mueller had found “no collusion”. A flat out lie, Mueller absolutely detailed collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia, he just didn’t have proof of coordination. Indeed, Barr blatantly perjured himself in front of Congress and is plainly acting as Trump’s personal lawyer to oversee this coverup of the Mueller report. But I don’t think it is working. Yes, it’s supporting the Repub/Fox propagandists by giving them their talking points and Trump’s cult members are parroting it in social media but dropping polls are reflecting that the public is smarter than Trump’s lying minions. And it’s only pushing impeachment closer to happening which Trump may think will energize and help him but he’s not Clinton, he’s Nixon and impeachment will only drag him down to destruction. » Posted By AdLib On May 1, 2019 @ 3:59 pm Weekend Music Thread – You Really Got Me In keeping with the theme…happy birthday to YOU! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs5vUfddkT8 Happy birthday, PPO! » Posted By AdLib On April 29, 2019 @ 10:51 pm Seven Reasons Why Democrats Should Impeach Donald Trump Yes but leaders are supposed to lead. That is their job. When they claim they can’t lead because they need to be led, they’re not being leaders. De facto. Following popular opinion of the moment as an excuse to abandon constitutional duties will not be looked back on as a proud moment in American history. Principles are not based on polling. In fact, it’s just the opposite. If someone is conditional about their principles, based on what’s popular at a moment in time, they make many terrible things possible. Great leaders like Lincoln, FDR, MLK and others led with their principles despite a lack of popular support and they are known as some of our greatest leaders. I can’t think of one leader we regard as great who didn’t act on principle until a majority changed to support it. I simply don’t think that’s the way great leadership works. » Posted By AdLib On June 7, 2019 @ 4:00 pm Leaders are supposed to lead. The public then follows. Look at the numbers when the Watergate Hearings began. Nixon’s favorables were higher than his negatives, a majority of Americans did not favor impeachment. What you’re missing is that support for impeachment doesn’t start before impeachment begins, it comes during impeachment, when the public learns of the crimes the president has committed. I would bet 99% of Americans haven’t read the Mueller Report. Many have heard propaganda from Trump and Fox News that has confused them. What Dems should do is start an impeachment inquiry that is televised and shares the info and testimony that proves Trump committed crimes. The Mueller Report provides all of this already. Once informed, the public will follow and a majority will support impeachment as it continues. Should Obama have not passed the ACA? A majority was against that too and stayed opposed to it until recent years. Now a majority of Americans feel very strongly that it must stay the law of the land. This is what leadership is, not being a slave to polls but understanding what the people want and leading them to it even when they’re not sure you’re taking them in the right direction. » Posted By AdLib On June 6, 2019 @ 11:47 am Like anything, depending on how you use something, it can be useful or dangerous. Numbers aren’t inherently treachorous, we rely on them in most aspects of our daily life. What makes a difference is whether numbers are accurate and if they are viewed in context. It would be a mistake to reinterpret that 65% who see Trump as a liar and apply that entire amount to another question such as the percent of people who would support starting impeachment. My point though is on the concern that I find unsupported, that if an impeachment went all the way to trial in The Senate, after months of House hearings that laid out daily on wall-to-wall tv coverage that Trump was indeed a criminal who broke laws at least in obstructing justice, that it could help Trump if the Republicans in the Senate refused to remove him. My proposition is that there may not be a majority supporting the beginning of impeachment but as with Nixon, once the televised hearings expose Trump’s criminality, a majority will end up supporting impeachment (even if they don’t support removal). We all know that the Repubs in The Senate wouldn’t vote to remove Trump from office if he was murdering immigrant children in public (oh wait, he is!) so when they act as we all know they will, to refuse to convict and remove him, they’d just be acting as everyone now suspects. Then Trump would do just what he did when the Mueller Report was released, claim he’s been vindicated, that it’s all been a witch hunt by hateful Dems and that poor widdle Donald is just a victim. When he played this propaganda act after the Mueller report, his numbers actually went down because…most Americans don’t believe him. Why would this nearly identical victimhood act be any different if used after impeachment? We’ve already seen the same thing fail just a month ago. The dynamic here is that the only way an impeachment could help Trump is if people would believe his howling about being persecuted. We just had a test run of that and it didn’t work because most Americans know Trump is a liar and a con man. So for these reasons, I find the concern that impeachment somehow could help Trump as just an unfounded, unsupported fear and between giving into that and acting on principle and following the constitutional duty Congress is charged with, I pick the latter. » Posted By AdLib On June 6, 2019 @ 11:38 am misapope, here’s a central reason why I don’t believe that Trump once again whining out his paranoid fantasy of being persecuted if his party blocks his removal under impeachment: Poll: 65 percent of Americans say Trump is not honest
The responses were heavily split along party lines. Ninety-five percent of Democrats surveyed said Trump was dishonest, while 66 percent of Republicans said Trump was truthful. Twenty-six percent of GOP respondents said Trump was dishonest. Sixty-nine percent of the independents polled said Trump was not honest. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/432698-poll-65-percent-americans-say-trump-is-not-honest The logic seems straightforward to me, if a tree falls in a forest and claims that a Democratic witch hunt tried to impeach it but failed because his allies protected him as they vowed they would before impeachment was started and nobody is there to believe it, did it really convince anyone? If a vast majority of Americans see Trump as a liar, why would they suddenly believe him and support him just because he lies again? The safety net for Dems starting an impeachment inquiry is that they can use televised broadcasts to prove that the evidence proves what Mueller said it did, that Trump can’t be found not guilty of obstruction of justice…or in layman’s terms, he can be proven guilty through the Mueller report and evidence. And if they state that they are fulfilling their constitutional duty, it reflects they are acting on principle and as required in our democracy. Of course the RW pundits and Trump can howl that it’s all partisan but they will do that no matter how convincing the evidence is (as they have on Mueller and his report). Dems have a moral high gorund to stand on if they do impeach, they don’t have that if they choose not to impeach because their priority is winning the 2020 election. One is following their oath of office, the other is self-interest. And that could discourage many independent voters and core Democrats about the party as 2020 approaches. And if Trump was re-elected and the Dems were to lose The House in 2020 after refusing to impeach? The party would tear itself apart. They need to make sure they’re on the right side of history and doing nothing would portray them very badly. Supporting impeachment is not to say Dems shouldn’t be prepared for a full blown PR campaign to counter to the expected propaganda by Trump and the RW about impeachment, that would be a wise thing for them to do. They can walk and chew gum and do so on principle, that sure seems like the right thing to do IMO. » Posted By AdLib On June 5, 2019 @ 7:19 pm Jake, I quoted your comments to show what it was that left me with the impressions I had, was trying to make sure I wasn’t misquoting you. Since you said half of 50 million non-voters would be in Trump’s camp, the math equaled 25 million which is what I was referring to. Anyway, best to let that be. I still don’t see the numbers as you describe them but I do agree that it is wise not to underestimate your opponent. The thing about undecided voters is that the majority usually swings to the challenger and not the incumbent because such voters have seen 4 years of the incumbent and just the fact that they’re undecided means they aren’t won over by the performance of the incumbent…most usually end up voting for “the new thing” because they’re not won over by the incumbent. The early state polls also appear to reflect the dynamics of the 2018 election so that means public opinion in the swing states is continuing to be somewhat solid in favoring Dems. Again, never count your chickens until their hatched but this bodes well for Dems and reflects that Trump has really lost the majority of voters in those states. Would impeachment make them change their mind? IMO, that is highly doubtful, minds aren’t really being changed no matter what horrible things about Trump are exposed or how much he cries victimhood and tries to instill fear. Remember the extremes he went to before the 2018 election, even forcing the military to the border and howling that we were being invaded by the brown hordes of rapists and murderers? And the result was the biggest Dem win in history. I think people have made their minds up on Trump and whatever happens, they’re not going to change much and a solid majority is pretty much locked in opposing him. So the concern that impeachment would stampede voters over to Trump’s side if Senate Repubs protect him from removal, as they have been doing anyway, seems exaggerated to me. » Posted By AdLib On June 5, 2019 @ 6:32 pm Jake, being critical of someone for pointing out an inconsistency with numbers doesn’t make them look inconsistent. So you understand where I’m coming from, here are the statements you made that left me confused with what you were proposing and believing that your numbers were inconsistent, including expressing that Trump could gain up to 15 million voters while Dems had no similar potential to gain votes from 2016 non-voters: As of now, Trump has a potential pool of 15 million from his core demographic to draw on. We have no similar large solid base demographic to draw on. So at best, the actual potential pool is more like 50 million. I then looked at the different voting demographics and what proportion voted for Trump vs. Clinton as well as what percent of the particular demographic votes. Then also looked at where they were. Overall, at first blush, roughly about half the total potential voters are Trumpites and half are Dems. But almost two-thirds of Trump’s potential is concentrated in his very core demographic, Whites without a college degree, some 15 million. We have no similar core demographic that even has half the potential of these potential core Trumpites. The last quote makes that assumption that 50% of non-voters in 2016 are disinterested in voting though the chart you linked to shows only a maximum of 16.5% (but likely less). It also says half of 50 million non-voters would be potential voters for Trump, that would be 25 million, not 15 million. With the inconsistencies I saw, the breakdowns of the split that followed and the percentage that are Trump voters didn’t make sense. I also don’t follow how Dems have less potential to gain non-voter support when you say that 50 million non-voters are split equally between Trump and Dems. Then you propose that because Trump’s potential voters are his core demo, mostly white non-college, they total up to number far more potential voters than voters who aren’t all in the same demo who support Dems. But it’s still 25 million on each side. So I don’t follow that rationale. We should probably move on from this topic but the reason I’ve been so active in countering this proposition is that I believe that too many folks are constructing nightmare scenarios without justification so as to justify Dems not impeaching Trump. My view of course is that Trump should not be allowed by Dems to continue destroying our democracy because of unfounded concerns about how Trump would be helped if Dems do their constitutional duty and more broadly expose him as a criminal in impeachment hearings. » Posted By AdLib On June 4, 2019 @ 5:43 pm Again, that is not supported by the document you provided and what you’re saying now is very different than the 25 million to zero margin you claimed for Trump previously. Where are you getting this new claim from, that whites without a college degree are more likely voters in swing states in 2020? That is not in this document. As for those swing states, follow the link below to Real Clear Politics to see, as I mentioned to TOCB above, polling that shows that Trump is very much underwater in nearly all swing states right now including MI, WI, NC, PA, MI and NH: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/ Even with the bigger share of non-voters that you claim he could get, his deficits in these states are looking too large to overcome (and he won’t have Repub governors to help him out with suppressing voters and more). And one thing that many people don’t recognize is that many non-voters live in states that are either solid Red or Blue. So their votes won’t make any difference if they’re Republicans in TX, AL, MO, etc. Deduct all these potential Trump voters from Red states and there’s not many left over to make any kind of difference. » Posted By AdLib On June 4, 2019 @ 4:41 pm Many good points, TOCB, beginning with the big picture on why Trump’s approval in the GOP is so high. The GOP is like a coffee percolator that has been left on too long, much of what it contains has evaporated and what’s left is just the dregs. Is it surprising that most sensible Republicans have mostly fled the GOP because of Trump and what’s left are the Trumpers so his approval is in the 90%s. In this circumstance, how could it not be? I think Pelosi may be operating with a different motivation than those who genuinely are concerned (even if it is an unfounded concern) that impeaching Trump without removing him would help get him re-elected. Remember, Pelosi also promised in 2006, before she won the Speakership the first time, that she wouldn’t attempt to impeach Bush for his crimes. Pelosi is an opponent of impeachment in apparently all cases. It uproots the status quo and my thought is that Pelosi likes the status quo because in it, she is Speaker and Dems are favored to take the WH and even retake all of Congress. She doesn’t want to rock the boat because it seems to be on course. I do understand it but I don’t agree with it, she is shirking her constitutional duty and the damage she’s allowing to continue by blocking impeachment could be far more profound and difficult to fix in some cases, in the future. When one considers that the GOP has embraced the Russians who corrupted our election, along with the Repub embrace of voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc., it is clear that the GOP has also embraced corrupting elections as a necessity for them to hold onto and gain more power. Of course, such suppression of the majority of the public never ends well for the suppressors but no one wants it to get that far. We may be out of luck in some swing states under Republican control when it comes to open and fair elections but there were results in 2018 that helped minimize that. Dems winning the governorships in MI, WI, PA, MN, NC and even KS helps reduce the number of states where Republicans can sabotage the fairness of elections. And the win of the Senate seat in AZ and House success in most states bodes better for Dems. And the Russian strategy for manipulating our elections won’t be new to us, many more will be on the lookout for and battle back against it as it rears its ugly head on social media. As is public knowledge, Trump barely squeaked by a win in the Electoral College with 46% of the vote, in a year when Trump was New Coke and an outsider. Since then, many swing voters who tried Trump out but found out he was awful, have left him. Trump no longer can run as not being a politician and being an outsider who will “drain the swamp” (at least to those who aren’t his cult followers). So Trump now is on track to only pull in around 42% of the vote. If Dems turn out like they did in 2018, that percentage could be even lower for Trump. The Dems are clearly in the best position to win even with election meddling by Repubs and Russia and others. He’s greatly under water in MI, WI, NC, PA, MI, NH and elsewhere (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/)…and he doesn’t have stooges as Govs in these states to help prevent his losses there. Trump will lose in the end and impeaching him only damages him more, it doesn’t help him to be exposed day after day in televised hearings as a criminal who’s been lying that he wasn’t, no matter the outcome in the Senate. » Posted By AdLib On June 4, 2019 @ 4:26 pm Jake, I did look at the table you linked to and thanks for that. However, you aren’t totaling the numbers properly to represent disinterested voters which you claimed were 50% of the 100 million who didn’t vote. You took the grand totals of non-voters that include many other voters who didn’t vote or register for a variety of other reasons, many of whom may indeed vote in 2020. Here’s the table (you can click on it to see it full screen): https://planetpov.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Voting-graph-US-Census.jpg In the Registered Non-Voters, only 2.92% said they didn’t vote because they weren’t interested. In Non-Registered Voters, there is 13.635% under “Not interested in the election/not involved in politics”. That description undercuts the total for the purposes you’re trying to apply it because some of the voters who were not interested in the 2016 election may be interested in the 2020 election. Even if I gave you all of the voters in both those categories, despite the issues with the second one, that’s only a maximum of 16.555% who could be classified as eligible to vote but not interested in voting. That amount does not even total to half of the 50% you claimed. And how that could be calculated out to support your claim that Trump then has a potential of support from 25 million of the 100 million non-voters in 2016 but the Democrat will have 0%, is beyond any logic I can see. Of course, all members are free to express themselves on issues however they wish, if they want to post links or not, it’s a personal choice, it’s not necessary. I’ve been blogging for a long time too and I never assume that anyone should believe what I claim as being facts just because I’ve been doing this for many years. When I’m reading anyone’s comment, I don’t see claims as equal to truth. Without objective proof, they are just someone’s claims. At The Planet, most folks have adopted this as the norm. In comments and posts, to make a point, links to objective sources that validate that point are included out of respect for the reader. I apply the same legitimacy of skepticism to myself, when I post or comment, I always provide links because I want readers to be able to see that what I’m describing as true is verified from an objective source. If you go back up to read my post, you will find links, quotes, graphs and other material from objective sources included to provide confirmation of what I represent as facts. This is what newspapers and journalists do, not because they’re not trustworthy or haven’t been writing for a long time but because they see it as incumbent on them in every story they write, to show their work and the facts that they are basing their article on. There have been times when what I thought was true turned out to be contradicted by the evidence I found. If the truth is what’s being sought, then facts from and links to objective sources empower the truth of a claim. That’s what matters to me when I write comments and posts. Show me the proof then we’ll see, that’s how I read posts and comments. And so far in this instance, I don’t think the evidence you provided supports your proposition but I’m always open to exploring it further. » Posted By AdLib On June 4, 2019 @ 3:49 pm In Feb 1974, when The House began impeachment, Nixon’s polling was 44% for impeachment, 43% against it. We all know how that impeachment snowballed support for it after the televised hearings into Nixon’s crimes to where a vast majority including Republicans supported Nixon’s impeachment so he resigned instead of facing The latest poll shows that the numbers for impeaching Trump are rising, up 4 points in the last month. Trump’s numbers right now are nearing Nixon’s when his impeachment started. 41% now support impeachment of Trump, 54% do not. Poll: Support for impeaching Trump rises to 41 percent So… 44% of Americans supported Nixon’s impeachment = Nixon’s impeachment began Since Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders are using sufficient public support as an obstacle to their supporting impeachment I would ask, would public support equal to or more than that for Nixon’s impeachment be sufficient? If not, wouldn’t this seem to be a false threshold to block their constitutional duty of impeachment for calculated political interests? » Posted By AdLib On June 3, 2019 @ 1:20 pm Actually, there is no “if”, here is what it says in The Constitution. Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States of America: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It is explaining the entire process and powers that Congress has. “Shall” confirms the punishment of the impeachment process but interpreting the Constitution means viewing an entire sentence for its construction to get its intended meaning. The sentence presents Impeachment as an expected action if a president commits crimes and mandates removal as the only penalty if convicted. It’s important to recognize that Impeachment is a single process that begins with hearings then, if voted by The House after hearings, proceeds to trial in The Senate and is then decided by them with a 2/3 vote needed to convict. So the removal of a president is just as much a part of impeachment as starting impeachment hearings. It is one process that includes all these phases. The Founders gave Congress this power expressly with the intent that if anyone who was unfit for the Presidency and/or a criminal somehow got in, they would be removed. It is like giving police the power to arrest a citizen for committing a crime, the reason they are given that power is to use it in all possible instances of a crime being committed. If for example, police witnessed a citizen committing a violent crime, would police be able to decide for their own reasons whether or not they would arrest that person and help bring him to trial? Or are they given the power they have precisely to use it without discrimination, whenever a crime has been committed? My point in that section of my article is that The Founders intended for Congress to use impeachment on a criminal presidency when and if it ever occurred. They would never have given it to Congress if they expected it would be put aside for political calculations when a president committed high crimes and misdemeanors. They had just fought a devastating and bloody war to escape the rule of a corrupt King George and wanted to insure that the US would never be held captive to a corrupt leader in the future. I don’t think anyone would argue that they felt that it would be fine to let a criminal president continue to dominate the country for as many years as it took to have another election. If they did, they would never have given the power of impeachment to Congress. It’s like installing a fire alarm to be pulled whenever there’s a fire, that’s what The Founders intended on impeachment. There is a blazing fire in our democracy right now, Mueller’s report documents it, so it is Congress’ duty to fulfill their oath of office to the Constitution and pull the fire alarm to protect the country. » Posted By AdLib On June 3, 2019 @ 9:54 am The numbers offered in this comment conflict with numbers offered in your previous comment and as part of the explanation, there is also what seems to be an arbitrary opinion used to reduce the number of potential voters that are factually documented to exist. Its quite confusing and unclear where you are getting these differing sets of numbers from. You are not providing any links to validate these numbers so it’s hard to confirm them. In a previous comment, you claimed that in 2020, there are 15 million additional potential voters for Trump and zero for Dems. Then in the latest comment, you claim that there are 25 million potential voters for Trump and still zero for Dems…despite there being 100 million eligible voters who didn’t vote in 2016. Just common sense-wise, if 100 million more Americans have the potential to vote in 2020, one would recognize that the split of them between Trump and the eventual Dem nominee wouldn’t end up at 25 million to zero. To arrive at these numbers, you claim that only half of the 100 million eligible voters would actually vote and the other half are hopeless but there is no link from any credible source to show this is anything more than arbitrary opinion. I am big on numbers as you are which is why I provide links to credible sources that validate any claims I might make on numbers. It would help me and I would think, other readers, if you would provide links to objective, credible sources that support the numbers that you are offering. » Posted By AdLib On June 3, 2019 @ 9:11 am You made some good points about what was in the article, Jake. Let’s build on that. There are more than 238 million eligible voters in the US. 58.1% of them voted in the 2016 election, meaning 138.5 million. Leaving around 100 million people who didn’t vote but could have. You’re saying that Trump has 15 million of that to draw on, that would leave 85 million for Dems to draw on. So this proposal doesn’t work in Trump’s favor nor does it support the proposition, which I don’t follow, that Dems have no voters to draw on. If only 58.1% of eligible voters voted, that applies to Dem voters too, tens of millions of them are out there as well for them to draw on. Also, while 2/3 of those polled were conditional about their voting for the Dem nominee based on who it is, it wouldn’t be sensible to translate that literally into the Dem nominee potentially only getting 14% of the vote, that claim is more about hesitating to fully commit until more is known about the candidates and eventual nominee. Reality and history underline that those who don’t vote for one party’s nominee, vote for the other party’s nominee for the most part. Yes, there will a percentage of voters who vote 3rd party but especially understanding the stakes of the election and there being no momentum this upcoming cycle for independent candidates, it’s likely to be less than the 4.9% that voted 3rd party in 2016. But those voters are losses for both parties so it just reduces the vote totals for Trump and the Dems, it doesn’t pull entirely from one side or the other. So, the most intuitive view of the poll speaks best for it. If 55% of Americans say they will never vote for Trump and only 28% say they definitely will, the Dem opposing Trump is twice as likely to win than Trump is and the pool of voters Trump has to draw on if his cries of victimhood and exoneration after an impeachment where Republican Senators refuse to remove him, is far too small to make up that difference. » Posted By AdLib On June 2, 2019 @ 8:14 pm Cool Jake, I like numbers people and discussing numbers. I would say that the 55% number you’re using from the poll against the 2016 election results isn’t complete. Here’s a graphic of the numbers from the poll I mentioned above: https://planetpov.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/4D0139E2-1081-4ED1-AB96-57A89A191E24.jpeg So only 28% say they would definitely vote for Trump and 14% say they would consider it. Naturally, that entire 14% won’t all decide to go his way but for argument’s sake, let’s say a miracle happens and Trump gets all the undecided. It comes to a total of 42%. Trump can’t win even with that huge gift of all possible Undecideds that could go his way. As you know, Trump won electorally by only about 40k votes in the Rust Belt states when he had 46% in the polls. A more realistic projection from this poll would put him below 40%. Impossible to win with that. So my point is that at least these poll numbers support that even if Trump moved most of the undecided who could vote for him into his camp because the Senate Repubs block impeachment removal on wholly political grounds, after Trump has been beaten up in the media for months through televised impeachment hearings and exposed as a complete criminal in constant media reports, he still would only end up with 42% at most and more likely in the high 30%s. What I think some folks are missing is that many indie voters who are moderate and went for Trump hoping he would be better than he turned out, have left him for good. Trump’s ceiling as polling over the past 2 years since has shown is very limited and solid. He can’t get out of the mid 40%s in approval, which is his ceiling, while his average approval is this same low 40%s the latest poll reflects. This big pool of voters that Den leadership fears impeachment could push towards Trump and help him win in 2020…just doesn’t exist. » Posted By AdLib On June 1, 2019 @ 10:03 am I am still looking for folks who oppose impeachment to explain how or why Trump gains voters from a process that will demonstrate what a terrible criminal he is. Why do you think a majority of voters who already say they’ll never vote for Trump would suddenly fall in love with him because he’s proven in wall-to-wall tv coverage for months to be a criminal but Repubs in The Senate won’t hold him responsible. Poll: 55 percent say they won’t vote for Trump in 2020 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441103-poll-55-say-they-wouldnt-vote-for-trump-in-2020 » Posted By AdLib On May 31, 2019 @ 11:18 pm That is amazing, Kes! We are going to need at least some version of a rising up against Trump’s attempt to let crime prevail in our democracy and these prosecutors are people Americans can rally around. » Posted By AdLib On May 7, 2019 @ 8:51 pm Also, this article just came out today: Trump would have been charged with obstruction were he not president, hundreds of former federal prosecutors assert More than 370 former federal prosecutors who worked in Republican and Democratic administrations have signed on to a statement asserting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s findings would have produced obstruction charges against President Trump — if not for the office he held. The statement — signed by myriad former career government employees as well as high-profile political appointees — offers a rebuttal to Attorney General William P. Barr’s determination that the evidence Mueller uncovered was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed a crime. All of these professional prosecutors believe there’s sufficient evidence to go to trial against Trump for committing a crime, I think that’s more than enough for The House to be justified and required to begin impeachment hearings against Trump (though I’m fine if they begin with regular hearings as long as they’re not blocked by Trump’s refusals to cooperate…then they need the powers to compel testimony and production of documents that impeachment gives them). » Posted By AdLib On May 6, 2019 @ 1:54 pm Hi Bill, welcome to The Planet! In general, I agree with you that the first step for The House should be an investigation into the crimes Trump appears to have committed (though I’d argue that at the least, obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense, has been very clearly and publicly evidenced). As we’re seeing though, due to Trump and his cronies violating The Constitution and refusing to provide documents, testimony and witnesses, by not having the greater powers under impeachment, The House could be sidelined into court battles through the 2020 elections and never truly be able to investigate Trump’s crimes through regular hearings. The impeachment process gives The House greater powers to gain documents and testimony and may be needed if hearings can be crushed by Trump. I think Nancy Pelosi’s repeated assurances that impeachment won’t happen unless 2/3 of the Senate are already onboard with it are wrong-headed. First, the fear of being impeached could keep Trump more in check. Secondly, I don’t think any impeachment hearings ever started with 2/3 of The Senate already expressing their support to remove the president. Third, the power of public impeachment hearings, where regular Americans can watch and discover the truths about Trump really having committed crimes, is exactly how you can get to having 2/3 of The Senate agree to remove a president. What makes a removal vote in The Senate possible is one thing, public opinion. No party would willingly vote out their own president unless they felt they had no other choice…or lose re-election. The only thing that would jeopardize their re-election is if their voters want a criminal president removed and they refuse to follow the will of their voters. Yes, it would be ideal if 2/3 of everyone in Congress could agree before an impeachment that a president should be removed but without going through the process, it’s not really possible. Instead of the fear that impeachment of Trump would give him Bill Clinton’s poll bounce, maybe Dems should consider that Trump is more like Nixon and a public impeachment hearing that lays out Trump’s criminal behavior would be more damaging to Trump’s polls as it was for Nixon, creating an election safeguard if 2/3 of The Senate didn’t vote to remove despite solid proof of crimes and a strong majority of Americans supporting it. My grandfather had a saying, “Sometimes you’re so smart, you outsmart yourself.” I am concerned that the mistaken political calculations of Dems could once again be their downfall. What if Trump wins re-election (or at least a manipulation of voters and voting results re-elects him)? What if Democrats also lose The House in 2020 for the same reasons? In this scenario, there is no one to stop a newly emboldened and politically protected Trump from committing unimaginably greater crimes and abuses. The Democrats only have power at this moment in time. If they’re not willing to use it now against Trump, they may never have another chance. I think gambling on just winning in 2020 instead of using their constitutional duty and powers to impeach as The Founders intended, to prove to the public that Trump is indeed a criminal abusing the greatest power in the country and at least try their best to stop him, would be a profound mistake. » Posted By AdLib On May 6, 2019 @ 10:29 am Will the public pay attention to an event that would be historic, could change the political leadership of the country, would be must-watch tv, would be covered every day in the news media, Twitter, Facebook, talk shows, and that Trump would be tweeting about like a madman? I’d say yes. As to comprehending and drawing a conclusion on it, the American people have done so in every previous impeachment. I think of course they would, especially in the most grievous impeachment ever held. I don’t think it will convince the 37%-40% or so of people who have supported Trump along the way but they don’t matter when compared to the 53%-60% of people who would only become more convinced that Trump has to go. Looking at this from the other direction, if you don’t think that the impeachment of a president would attract the attention of the public, why would simple congressional hearings get their attention or accomplish anything? I think that the approach you mention could create a troubling scenario if Trump won re-election. With Congress having voluntarily abandoned the power of the impeachment, I would be concerned that Trump would pursue fully authoritarian power over the country and with his judges in place, be essentially unstoppable. I don’t think more hearings would matter at that point. As I said at the end of my post, don’t we want to do everything we possibly can to prevent that scenario? And giving up more constitutional power with Trump already trying to destroy checks and balances doesn’t seem like a good path to head down. Playing it safe is not a proven strategy for winning power. Those who are audacious are the ones who more often prevail and as much as I detest Trump, he’s proven that. » Posted By AdLib On May 1, 2019 @ 4:52 pm A Proposed Cheat Sheet for Running Against Trump in 2020 Cheers, alohacowboy! That is a legit concern, that focusing on the positive may not be what would best take down Trump. No guarantee that it would be what works best but my instinct is that most Americans are weary of the constant barrage of hatred and negativity from Trump and his followers. Even if they don’t say so out loud, I think people are very ready for a candidate and president who brightens their lives and their thoughts about the future, for them and their children’s lives too. Believe me, I can’t wait for a debate between Trump and the Dem nom where the Dem clocks Trump with his refusal to protect America instead of Russia, commit crimes against humanity by caging and causing the deaths of children and trying to tear apart our system of justice as well as all other institutions. While that rhetorical punch in the nose will be very satisfying, what Trump has done with all of his fear mongering and divisiveness is open a wide lane for the Dem to drive down, promoting a better America in every way. I think that should be the heart of the Dem’s campaign though the Dem shouldn’t hesitate to slap Trump down for his horrible acts, just not get caught in elevating the mud fight that Trump wants to being the primary focus. » Posted By AdLib On June 7, 2019 @ 1:59 pm Thanks Opie Cat! We’ve got our mission and we choose to accept it! » Posted By AdLib On June 7, 2019 @ 1:49 pm Murph, so pleased to hear your very kind words on the post, I think we’re on the same page on this kind of strategy. Absolutely, I will polish it and cross post it at Yabberz tomorrow. I haven’t signed us up for Medium yet, will think about that. Once again, your support of this post is really appreciated! » Posted By AdLib On April 18, 2019 @ 4:51 pm Netanyahu’s Win Is A Warning To American Voters: Trump Can Win In 2020 Everyone who didn’t think Trump could win the first time should remember that and know that Trump could win re-election so enthusiasm to get out and get others out to vote as we had in 2018 is critical. I don’t think Netanyahu is so much of a parallel with Trump though. First off, Netanyahu’s far right views match a majority of Israeli voters while Trump’s don’t get much higher than around 43% of American voters. Netanyahu ran against a novice politician backed by a brand new political party (The Blue and White). Trump will face a Dem strong enough to have beaten a formidable primary competition and an influential and very experienced established Dem party. Netanyahu has been awful but in step with his voters while Trump has been exponentially awful, being openly racist, misogynist and attacking the people, cities and states who represent a majority of voters. Also, in 2018, when Trump pushed the only hot button he had to manipulate the election, immigration and the Killer Caravans, the country gave Democrats the largest margin of victory we’ve ever seen. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s greater oppression of the Palestinians is unfortunately supported by most Israelis. Add to that the SDNY, House and NY AG cases that will continue to roll out against Trump and the slowing of the economy and Trump is not looking at an ideal environment. All of that said, there are some treacherous things that could happen to help Trump win. Of course, Russian and Saudi interference. Asses like Howard Schultz or other megalomaniacs running as 3rd party candidates that drain enough votes from the Dem to allow Trump to win with less than a majority. Voter suppression tactics in Republican led states. Rigged voting machines without paper trails that are just now being bought up by Repub legislatures and Governors. So it is very important that no one takes for granted that Trump will lose against even a neutral Dem. Enthusiasm is critical and Dems must rally together to support whoever the Dem candidate is. Together we stand. » Posted By AdLib On April 15, 2019 @ 7:06 pm In Search of Trump’s Tax Returns: THE BIG STALL Hi Derfallbright, welcome to The Planet! Yes, once you’re logged in, you can comment on posts and rate posts. You can also rate comments using the thumbs up. Please don’t hesitate to ask if you have any questions about PlanetPOV. http://www.coventrycathedral.org.uk/wpsite/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/welcome.jpg » Posted By AdLib On May 7, 2019 @ 9:48 pmComments Posted By AdLib
41% of Americans now support Trump’s impeachment and the number is rising.
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats
