The Tyrannical Minority

[_EAllusion]

The civility police on cable news can't tell the difference between a powerful political figure leading people in chants to lock up political opposition and people spontaneously throwing that chant back at that person after he's been on a crime spree that deserves being locked up for.

What makes it authoritarian is that it was aimed at someone, not because they plausibly did anything worth locking up, but because she was a political opponent.

If you create a norm where it's not okay to ever think and express that a political figure should be locked up, you're basically issuing a license for them to be criminals.

I can imagine someone saying, "But those people in the crowds thought Clinton really did something that should put her in prison. Surely that matters." Yeah, ginning up false charges against political opponents is the authoritarian playbook. Exactly. It criminalizes dissent. That's why it's bad.

It's likely Donald Trump would be locked up right now if the powers of the Presidency weren't protecting him.

[_moksha]

Honorentheos, would you argue against Trump being a scoundrel?

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos, would you argue against Trump being a scoundrel?

What have I said that suggests this is a question not already answered? Of course the evidence is pretty clear Trump was one before taking office, appears to be doing his best to profit off the Presidency while doing harm to our broader national interests and the integrity of the structures of our republic, and will almost certainly go to his grave having cheated and backstabbed more people than most. It's not the direct question being explored in this thread, though.

To be honest, I find the question disappointing. It smacks of binary thinking. I'm disappointed, moksha.

Back when Obama was President I had publicly expressed opposition and serious concern regarding the lack of transparency, overzealousness in using drone strikes that including killing American citizens without trial, and demonstrating an over-reliance on rhetoric with apparent limited ability to manage the mechanisms of government needed to enact laws that matter. Did that mean I didn't generally think he was doing a reasonable job because I had issues with some of his policies? And in the case of the drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and his son, serious concerns? I'd hope not. Being President is not a job that allows for idealisticly pure decision making. The President is a job that is almost 100% guaranteed to include making decisions that result in people dying, losing their jobs, having to decide which group to leave behind to help out the other. Taking the job means the person who leaves that office will be morally compromised. It's a terrible job and it's crazy anyone with any integrity at all wants it. Politicians who attempt to be idealisticly pure are generally known for their rhetoric and ineffectiveness. Thinking binarily about politics is naïve. In the case of Obama, one has to recognize that viewing him in a binary way would require either willfully ignoring the problematic and even bad or turning on him completely. I find both to be poor choices and hardly the only ones available.

In the case of the subject of this thread, the issue isn't whether or not Trump has done wrong and the evidence shows he should be impeached. The subject of this thread is political in nature, and about how following the impeachment process and it's potential success or failure demands more than focusing on the most readily convinced members of the public that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. There's a legitimate political need to recognize how partisan politics is perceived, how the majority of voters in the US are geographically concentrated in ways that makes majority held opinions less meaningful than ones held geographically broadly, and means idealism is for trolls and children. Trolls because it's easy to rile people up using it that results in alls sorts of lols. Children because that's basically what it means to be a child.

[_EAllusion]

The idea that Ukraine is easily perceived as an apolitical issue, but one of any number of other scandals we can pick from are not, is an analysis detached from reality to justify a position held a priori for other reasons.

Also, the office of the Presidency doesn't force one to assassinate American citizens on the President's say-so. The sort of cynicism that says Presidents inevitably must engage in some serious moral faults is naïveté masquerading as maturity, but it makes a great case for the libertarian view that the office of the Presidency and the Federal government in general should inherently be weak. If it inevitably produces this kind of disregard for human rights, it's best to neuter it. Governors don't assassinate American citizens with impunity. Not yet, anyway.

[_honorentheos]

The idea that Ukraine is easily perceived as an apolitical issue, but one of any number of other scandals we can pick from are not, is an analysis detached from reality to justify a position held a priori for other reasons.

Again, a bad reading. Unless by a priori you mean an issue that achieved an evidence threshold that, if not predetermined was at least recognizable when seen. Then ok. The Ukraine scandal has advantages in terms of evidence that are much easier to present to the public in ways that can be recognized as non-partisan.

the office of the Presidency doesn't force one to assassinate American citizens on the President's say-so. The sort of cynicism that says Presidents inevitably must engage in some serious moral faults is naïveté masquerading as maturity, but it makes a great case for the libertarian view that the office of the Presidency and the Federal government in general should inherently be weak. If it inevitably produces this kind of disregard for human rights, it's best to neuter it. Governors don't assassinate American citizens with impunity. Not yet, anyway.

It's a fair point that the President giving the ok for drone strikes knowing they will result in the death of American citizens is not inherent to the job. I certainly think of all of Obama's legacy that is in it's own category. If pressed, I don't have a clear opinion on what should be or have been done about it. I was never of the opinion he should have been impeached over it but when those strikes occurred I was very concerned that it showed a Bush-era level of rationalizing our actions in the so-called war on terror that warranted some form of censure. But what? I don't know. That said, there is little difference between Presidents issuing or giving the ok for military missions that serve a national purpose that result in the loss of human life and a Governor having ultimate responsibility for state troopers and other law enforcement that perform activities where life is lost in violence enacted in the interest of the state. That's reality. While I have many areas of agreement with libertarians on monetary and social issues, I don't think it's coincidence many self-professed libertarians are idealists whose idea of how people should be governed relies on a background view of the world that doesn't and never has existed. So again, if you want to run that comment to an extreme have at it. It's on brand.

[_EAllusion]

Again, a bad reading. Unless by a priori you mean an issue that achieved an evidence threshold that, if not predetermined was at least recognizable when seen. Then ok. The Ukraine scandal has advantages in terms of evidence that are much easier to present to the public in ways that can be recognized as non-partisan.

There is nothing less political about Ukraine than there is Trump's self-dealing or the findings of the Mueller report. In fact, now that it is subject to an impeachment investigation being pushed and run almost exclusively by Democrats, it is more political. You, after the fact, decided this one is not as political because you reasoning is predetermined to explain the outcome of when Democrats finally go after an issue. That's why you ended up taking your assertion as self-evident when it doesn't begin to fit the facts.

The idea that Ukraine just has more evidence behind it is absurd. In fact, one of the things the Ukraine case has going for it as that some of the evidence was uncovered after a cover up attempt which the press covers as more scandalous than when Trump does his impeachable offenses plain as day out in the open. You even see that dynamic play out inside of the Ukraine scandal in which the bright-line impeachable offenses were confessed to and repeated in public (probably in a sad attempt to distract from even worse goings-on), yet there is still a focus on cosplaying Watergate.

It's a fair point that the President giving the ok for drone strikes knowing they will result in the death of American citizens is not inherent to the job.

I think this undersells what you are talking about here. American citizens weren't collateral damage. They were the target. Under the reasoning employed by the Obama administration, Donald Trump could start drone striking critics and it would be just as legal (or illegal). What keeps that in check is a vague sense of norms and the ambition of the person with the button.

. That said, there is little difference between Presidents issuing or giving the ok for military missions that serve a national purpose that result in the loss of human life and a Governor having ultimate responsibility for state troopers and other law enforcement that perform activities where life is lost in violence enacted in the interest of the state. That's reality.

As a defense of the Presidential power to assassinate citizens based on a unilateral assertion of national security interest, this elides some important distinctions and ends up reading as apologetics for murderous tyrants. After all, don't all great leaders have to make tough decisions that might get people killed?

[_honorentheos]

Again, a bad reading. Unless by a priori you mean an issue that achieved an evidence threshold that, if not predetermined was at least recognizable when seen. Then ok. The Ukraine scandal has advantages in terms of evidence that are much easier to present to the public in ways that can be recognized as non-partisan.

There is nothing less political about Ukraine than there is Trump's self-dealing or the findings of the Mueller report. In fact, now that it is subject to an impeachment investigation being pushed and run almost exclusively by Democrats, it is more political. You, after the fact, decided this one is not as political because you reasoning is predetermined to explain the outcome of when Democrats finally go after an issue. That's why you ended up taking your assertion as self-evident when it doesn't begin to fit the facts.

The idea that Ukraine just has more evidence behind it is absurd. In fact, one of the things the Ukraine case has going for it as that some of the evidence was uncovered after a cover up attempt which the press covers as more scandalous than when Trump does his impeachable offenses plain as day out in the open. You even see that dynamic play out inside of the Ukraine scandal in which the bright-line impeachable offenses were confessed to and repeated in public (probably in a sad attempt to distract from even worse goings-on), yet there is still a focus on cosplaying Watergate.

My sense is you are arguing to argue.

The Mueller report is solid evidence in my opinion, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing there is a meaningful difference between it's findings and how they are perceived compared to the almost immediate implosion of the attempt to make, "No Quid Pro Quo" the new "No Collusion". From the White House memo, to Christie saying it wasn't like Trump said, "Do me a favor" only to have Trump have said those exact words, to the text message exchange, to Mick Mulveny telling people to get over the quid pro quo, to Vindman's testimony...it's not the same case that has to be made to the American people. On top of that, even though in this case the targets were Joe and Hunter Biden it's clear the people who were being screwed over were the Ukranians fighting against Russian separatists. That brought out criticisms from multiple corners of the government apparatus that might not have been as willing to take risks coming forward had it been purely political.

Simply put, it's a different case.

It's a fair point that the President giving the ok for drone strikes knowing they will result in the death of American citizens is not inherent to the job.

I think this undersells what you are talking about here. American citizens weren't collateral damage. They were the target. Under the reasoning employed by the Obama administration, Donald Trump could start drone striking critics and it would be just as legal (or illegal). What keeps that in check is a vague sense of norms and the ambition of the person with the button.

Either way, the point is there aren't many people wondering when we're finally going to go arrest Obama for ordering the killing of American citizens without due process. I doubt that you are clamoring for that. Or are you?

. That said, there is little difference between Presidents issuing or giving the ok for military missions that serve a national purpose that result in the loss of human life and a Governor having ultimate responsibility for state troopers and other law enforcement that perform activities where life is lost in violence enacted in the interest of the state. That's reality.

As a defense of the Presidential power to assassinate citizens based on a unilateral assertion of national security interest, this elides some important distinctions and ends up reading as apologetics for murderous tyrants. After all, don't all great leaders have to make tough decisions that might get people killed?

I wasn't defending assassination. That's another bad reading. Again, I'm assuming you're arguing to argue but it's getting silly. I'm assuming you believe other readers will have skipped over my actual comments on this in the last three posts and jump on board. If they do, the actual comments I made are still on this page so meh.

[_moksha]

Honorentheos, would you argue against Trump being a scoundrel?

To be honest, I find the question disappointing. It smacks of binary thinking. I'm disappointed, moksha.

It was just a simple question. I did not mean to distract from your exploration into the root causes of multi-variate polarization. Sorry.

[_EAllusion]

Trump has engaged in impeachable content as and more overtly than what exists in the Ukraine instance. The Mueller investigation began in earnest with a confession of obstruction on TV. Trying to argue that this one instance is different because the evidence is stronger than normal is just wrong and smacks of a conclusion in search of a justification.

[_EAllusion]

I am not saying I approve of Vladimir Putin killing journalists. All heads of nations have to make tough decisions that can get people killed. It’s a complex job and no one successful at it is morally pure.

Uh, that elides important distinctions and functions as an apology for tyranny.

Whoa buddy. I said I wasn’t approving of what Putin did. Quit being a contrarian.

Yeah...