Election 2020

[Kaelik]

If the resulting dialogue of what I proposed generally to address malfeasance in the democratic process is imperceptible to you, then your perception is unqualified. Because it is categorically factual that voters make choices based on perception of intent. And it is categorically factual that voters do not choose candidates that cross the grain of what they believe.

1) Republicans have been consistently bad faith liars for literally your entire life.

2) Republicans have consistently performed in elections well above the support for their actual policies.

If the conclusion you reach from these facts is that obviously if you show that people are hypocrites people won't vote for them, and you just need to tell people this information then you are absolutely fucking not someone anyone should listen to on political messaging.

Unlike you, my theory, that people know their politicians are lying, and willing to make some effort to understand what the lie means and then vote based on that interpretation has many powerful advantages.

One advantage is that I can describe why a Dog Whistle is a term that exists and describes a thing politicians do to get votes.

If your position is that the voting registrar of the right is filled with indomitable monsters, then your perception is unqualified to weigh the degrees of success the impeachment process garnered.

If your only measure of success of impeachment proceedings is to see Trump swinging from the same gallows that his army constructed on the west lawn of Congress, then your political acumen is questionable

You seem to be projecting arguments you want to have with someone else onto me. "People think their politicians are lying to them and vote for them anyway" doesn't say people are monsters. Some of them are monsters, but some aren't. Ideally I would HOPE democrats think their politicians are lying to them because Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have both recently said how they want a strong republican party. So if you believe they are not lying then OOF.

"Believe your politicians are lying and will vote anyway" doesn't have anything to do with monstrosity one way or the other.

Likewise, I specifically explained why I think the democrats should have called witnesses and it wasn't "So they could execute Trump." It was specifically because I believe that calling witnesses would demonstrate the importance of the events to the American public in a way that saying your vacation is more important than impeachment doesn't.

If you don’t have an idea on how to run the long game politically, you will always be reactionary to people who do. Republicans like Mitch McConnell have left generational marks on branches of government because of those rules.

You don't have any idea how to run a long game. You want to run a very stupid "long game" that won't accomplish jack shit because that politicians are lying to them is not NEW information to the american people. It is the message being conveyed by those lies that people respond to.

Only an emotional child would suckle the teets of disenfranchisement and throw blocks at anyone who suggests a way to make the body politic more accountable when it doesn’t turn sour grapes into honey.

I have no idea what point you think you were making with this, and I doubt anyone else could articulate it from reading this sentence either.

[Kaelik]

There was some indication after 1/6 that Trump was losing support in hypothetical 2024 republican primary.

But luckily, now that Democrats have decided to not call any witnesses and just let him be acquitted with no investigation because their vacation is more important, people have learned the lesson they were supposed to learn, and Turmp has surged back up to dominating lead in 2024 republican primary.

Boy this is going to be fun!

[Harshax]

MOWR WITNESSES would have changed the outcome? Absurd. If a public record that correlated deed and intent wasn’t enough, what could extending the trial with witnesses ever hope to accomplish?

[Kaelik]

MOWR WITNESSES would have changed the outcome? Absurd. If a public record that correlated deed and intent wasn’t enough, what could extending the trial with witnesses ever hope to accomplish?

Indeed, what could televised hearings of witness testimony have done to influence that thoughts of people who watch television?

We will never know.

[Harshax]

Maybe if Democrats could have mounted a pressure campaign denouncing Republican efforts to call, what 300 witnesses or what ever defendant counsel said, it might have turned the table. But you seem to have already concluded that Trump’s supporters won’t be dissuaded, so I don’t understand why that approach would have been better than concluding an indefensible prosecution and turning to the business of pushing the 1.9 trillion relief package along party lines. The unassailable argument, because it is meritless, from the right is that “we” have to ignore the past and move forward on kitchen table policies.

[Harshax]

For the record, Fox News cut away from some of the most damning moments during the impeachment trial to literally broadcast nonsense. There’s no doubt that they same would have happened during witness testimony.

[Harshax]

Going to walk back a previous statement. I did hope the trial would have lasted long enough to impact polling about the subject. In that respect, witnesses would have been effective.

[Kaelik]

Maybe if Democrats could have mounted a pressure campaign denouncing Republican efforts to call, what 300 witnesses or what ever defendant counsel said, it might have turned the table. But you seem to have already concluded that Trump’s supporters won’t be dissuaded, so I don’t understand why that approach would have been better than concluding an indefensible prosecution and turning to the business of pushing the 1.9 trillion relief package along party lines.

Why would democrats have to mount a pressure campaign to determine something they control?

They can just decide who does and doesn't get called, because that's an option they have in the Senate.

I didn't determine that Trump's supporters won't be dissuaded. I determined that republican elected senators would not be dissuaded. There are in fact over 70 million people that are not senators but are Trump supporters, and while I'm not sure exactly how many of them could be convinced, it's probably more than zero.

So yeah, the Senate should have called witnesses, a thing that would not have interfered in passing the one law they are going to pass all year.

The unassailable argument, because it is meritless, from the right is that “we” have to ignore the past and move forward on kitchen table policies.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

[Harshax]

But given the aforementioned behavior of Fox News, I don’t think it would have helped much. Honestly, there should be an FCC policy that states you’re not allowed to broadcast an incomplete public record of a Congressional Session. Because Fox News edited the impeachment broadcast at the exact moments testimony or arguments would have been informative to viewers.

[Harshax]

I’m pointing directly at the thing that segregates left and right wing opinion. I’m pointing at consumption capitalism. Anyone predisposed to tune into right wing media is only going to consume data that supports their arguments. Same goes for the left or middle.

Why would Democrats have to mount a pressure campaign? Because every channel devoted to broadcasting the Democrat message is only targeting individuals that already agree.

Fox News cut out from the public record broadcast to say nonsense. Individuals predisposed to agreeing with the right or Trump are only hearing that message.

With that in mind, my statement that witnesses wouldn’t have mattered is still valid. The delay in enacting kitchen table issues would have been crafted to call Democrats the enemy. And, with no accountable medium to dispute that message, any perceived delay in enacting real policy would have reflected poorly on the majority.

[Kaelik]

I’m pointing directly at the thing that segregates left and right wing opinion. I’m pointing at consumption capitalism. Anyone predisposed to tune into right wing media is only going to consume data that supports their arguments. Same goes for the left or middle.

Over 70 million people voted for Trump, many first time voters. In some predominately hispanic counties Biden did 60 points worse than Clinton did in 2016. There exist people who are persuadable, and maybe democrats should try persuading them instead of doing the thing you are doing, which is just declaring that no one in the universe can ever be persuaded so no one should try.

I don't think all those people were only watching Fox News, and I don't think they were all in right wing bubbles and not in "middle" "bubbles" where they got their news from some sources who would convey the information of the testimony of witnesses to them, even by literally showing it. It also might be true that Fox News cutting away persuades some people that something is afoot and they change the channel, I don't fucking know.

But I would really like democrats to try to persuade people instead of saying "we really wanted to take a vacation" and then going on vacation.

Why would Democrats have to mount a pressure campaign? Because every channel devoted to broadcasting the Democrat message is only targeting individuals that already agree.

No. Why would democrats have to mount a pressure campaign to stop republicans from calling 300 witnesses! Fox news has no effect on that decision because 51 democrats can stand there and vote on a specific list of witnesses that includes all the ones they want, and whatever ones they feel are actually relevant to Trump's defense without a bunch of filler.

With that in mind, my statement that witnesses wouldn’t have mattered is still valid. The delay in enacting kitchen table issues would have been crafted to call Democrats the enemy. And, with no accountable medium to dispute that message, any perceived delay in enacting real policy would have reflected poorly on the majority.

Your statement is still nonsense. Calling witnesses would have absolutely no delay on "kitchen table issues" a dumb thing you say to elide that what you mean is "passing the one reconciliation bill they will pass and then doing nothing." Nothing about the impeachment stops them from doing reconciliation work, and the can fit 30 minutes of recess to the trial to up or down vote the reconciliation bill if the trial is still ongoing in 4 months when they finally finish agreeing how much to lower the income threshhold on checks.

Your theory that 100% of voters just do whatever Fox News tells them to do is incompatible with all available evidence that tons of people actually change how they vote and that there exists a huge chunk of people who have never voted for any republican presidential candidate not named Donald Trump (beyond just the likely new voters who turned 18.)

[PhoneLobster]

So yeah, the Senate should have called witnesses, a thing that would not have interfered in passing the one law they are going to pass all year.

I mean this is the thing really.

I don't think they should have gone with impeachment at all, they should be getting things actually done.

But since they aren't getting things done, won't get things done and DID decide to go with impeachment.

Then they should have put any effort whatsoever in doing impeachment properly.

If a failed impeachment is one of the few things you will do in the next year or more you want it to at least look like a convincing attempt was made to do the right thing on some level with that.

By half assing it they make it obvious that it was a pointless act of worthless tokenism not representing either sensible practicality or moral integrity.

[Harshax]

It seems my statements are nonsensical to you because you waffle between raging against what was done and refuting what could have been done. It’s over. I don’t have much more to add here and clearly you think I never did.

I’ve directly engaged in meetings with groups that argued against defunding the police successfully, because I can quantify the most hyperbolic imagery that right wing media has portrayed and disarmed the shrill. I have engaged public opinion personally, in word and deed.

Only a theoretician would take a position that constant pressure from all sides to accept an argument is unimportant if a speculative primary factor was in play. In other words, you’re downplaying social pressure from peers that do consume Fox News. Your are being absurd. And you’re cherry picking my words for argumentative purposes instead of recognizing them for the broader context that that they convey.

Your theory is that I believe 100% of Republicans watch Fox News, even though I have specifically stated that only the smallest percentage of all Republican voters are part of the part apparatus and worry about a massive division in the party that would result in two ineffectual challengers to the left. You’re wasting my time.

I’ve been in physical altercations with Nazis. And I’m the prototype from which antifa gets its DNA. I have first hand knowledge of black men and women who have never seen a white person in the flesh. I know the opposite must be true. Therefore, I have surmised that media that plays on that isolation is unassailable without proper policy. And I believe that no amount of posturing and theatre in Congress will strip away the mind numbing periphery of public pressure.

So, technically., you are right. Yay! Here’s nothing as a reward.

Technically, Mitch McConnell was right to end the senate calendar and set when it will be available again for business. Particularly as it pertained to the delivery of articles of impeachment from the house.

Im going to go fuck myself. Kindly do the same.

[Kaelik]

Many of your comments again remain confusing and non sensible.

I suspect instead of my fundamental inability to understand your wise words because of my rages it might be instead that you are addressing these comments to some other person you imagine in your head.

I suspect this primarily because some of them seem to make sense entirely when directed at someone else not me making arguments I am not making.

Like this one: "Only a theoretician would take a position that constant pressure from all sides to accept an argument is unimportant if a speculative primary factor was in play." Which would make sense if I was arguing that calling witnesses was a magical power that would force republicans to convict.

But as a factor that will influence some voters on the margin it seems really obvious that the "speculative primary factor" would have more than zero influence, in part based on the very large history that voters have been influenced by any number of speculative primary factors (like whether they think a coup is a huge fucking deal or not might be based on whether people treat it like a huge fucking deal or say their vacation is more important.) Almost like not all possible voters are fox news viewers or exclusively friends with fox news viewers or whatever other thing you are offering as the reason why doing things couldn't convince marginal voters.

That's about the one I think I'm mostly capable of responding to, because the rest are either too unclear for me to even hypothesize on the meaning of or your rant about how badass you are for founding Antifa which doesn't seem relevant to the conversation.

[Harshax]

Seriously! You didn’t parse the whole, “Your talk is just that, whereas I claim to have talk and action. Lets measure our private parts, dimwit.” response?

Are you a robot?

[Kaelik]

Seriously! You didn’t parse the whole, “Your talk is just that, whereas I claim to have talk and action. Lets measure our private parts, dimwit.” response?

Are you a robot?

I guess I just thought if you were going to in fact claim to be about how good you are at evaluating the actions of politicians you would say something remotely related to that subject instead of making extremely obviously wrong bragging about unrelated activism, which, if true, might be good but irrelevant, but are also definitely you making dumb lies for god knows what reason.

But I guess if the new thing is that you accuse me of being just a loser on the internet who never does activism, I would respond with: That seems irrelevant to the current conversation but also is not true, but if it makes you feel better to believe that, I guess have fun.

[Harshax]

So I’m throwing back to your claim that less immediate, future forward, actions proposed by the majority would be ineffectual. And that claim is wrong.

[Kaelik]

So I’m throwing back to your claim that less immediate, future forward, actions proposed by the majority would be ineffectual. And that claim is wrong.

This is one of those things where it feels like you are addressing some other person arguing some other thing that I have not argued. Perhaps even a thing I have repeatedly contradicted every time you claim it.

But also is generally pretty unclearly worded, so it definitely requires a lot of assumption and guesswork to get to feeling like you are making that argument.

[Harshax]

And schematically, your grand gestures about witnesses and parlaying public opinion with congressional duty is ineffectual.

[Thaluikhain]

Personally, I don't see many Trump voters as being open to persuasion, if they couldn't see what he and his are by now, they are unlikely to change any time soon.

But, does it hurt to try?

[Kaelik]

And schematically, your grand gestures about witnesses and parlaying public opinion with congressional duty is ineffectual.

Again, have to make some deep leaks of logic to get even a hint of what you mean by "parlaying public opinion with congressional duty" and the thing I come up with is.... a thing I thing I have repeatedly said is not actually a thing and you have never addressed and instead just kept repeating a very wrong statement as if we both believed it.

[Harshax]

Well, fine. If you’re too lazy to keep your current posts in mind while I reply then this is just lazy discourse. I’m not going to contort my posts with code to make it easier to follow.

[Kaelik]

Well, fine. If you’re too lazy to keep your current posts in mind while I reply then this is just lazy discourse. I’m not going to contort my posts with code to make it easier to follow.

Again, when I say "not X" and then you say "I know we both agree X, but you are bad because of X." It is a very weird conversation.

Although, also to be clear, no part of your posts are confusing because they lack "code" but instead because instead of saying the thing you mean, whatever that is, you say vague shit like "parlaying public opinion with congressional duty" which could mean about a hundred things, or none, and I have to somehow guess what this means, and then, what point your are trying to make based on that meaning because you don't even follow up with like "which is bad because X" which might have provided some more context to guess what you meant by this vague nonsense phrase.

[Harshax]

Parlaying public opinion with congressional discourse is literally:

Do I, call witnesses despite the fact that no right wing media channel will actually broadcast a damning public record of incitement of insurrection. Despite the fact that congressional al managers have a majority in the Senate. Overlooking the fact that impartial jurors met with the defendants counsel and are on record for providing them insights.

Or

Do I accept that as a prosecutor, I can only reach neutral jurors who are willing to be persuaded by the evidentiary record. And, no amount of testimony will change a verdict that is based on opinion instead of evidence.

[Harshax]

As an addendum:

Despite all the majority can do to fully expose in minutia what this trial is about. The right will acquit. And! They will demonize the process. And! Only that demonization will play out directly to public opinion.