JasonL wrote: thoreau wrote: ↑
31 May 2019, 15:56
If the argument is that impeachment is the wrong tool until enough people support it, well (1) yes, that's why you need 2/3 of the Senate and (2) before enough people support it you'll need people who do support it and make the case for more to support it. You either have your own opinion on whether his conduct merits removal or you delegate your opinion to the rest of the public.
Is your argument then that all the people you listed in the other thread should have had impeachment brought against them even knowing there's no way you get close to 2/3? Like you are going down with impeach for illegal war in syria and such?
I'm saying that they deserved impeachment and removal. Yes, I am aware that there was no way for it to happen, just as there are plenty of other unhanged scoundrels roaming the Earth. That doesn't change the fact that they deserved impeachment and removal. I know that you disagree, but at least disagree on the merits, not on the basis of "Well, people disagreed with you so they didn't deserve impeachment and removal."
It is possible for something to be both deserved and politically impossible.
I mean, if I say that the Harvard House Dean who was taken down by SJWs* shouldn't have lost his job, I am not saying that he should have stayed in the job even though his superiors had decided otherwise. I know how organizational flowcharts work. Rather, I am saying that the relevant people should have made different choices. Administrators and activists should have all taken a deep breath and thought things through more carefully.
Likewise, with Trump, I am keenly aware that a critical mass does not support impeachment and removal. I nonetheless believe that a critical mass should change their minds and inform their elected representatives accordingly. And, yes, some of them will change their minds before others, but there's no reason why everyone must wait until everyone else changes their mind. It is ok to express a currently unpopular opinion.
Do you think I should refrain from saying that there is no PhD shortage until a critical mass of colleagues have independently changed their minds, because it would be unseemly to disagree as long as some of them have PhD Pipelie grants?
*Yes, I am aware of allegations that he was a shitty House Dean. But that isn't what brought things to a head. This whole thing blew up because he is a professor of criminal law and agreed to represent Harvey Weinstein.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."