Courage of Political People
I'm trying to avoid political posts on social media because they do far more harm to my cause than good. This means that I've (mostly) sat quietly throughout the Trump impeachment. This blog is the perfect place for me to vent my spleen then.
I don't want to hear any more sanctimony from Democratic supporting peoples about how they stand up for their convictions more than Republicans do. Most political people work hard to find context for why their opponent is worse than he probably is and context for why their guy is more innocent than not. I can provide about two dozen examples of Dems doing this. I'm sure they can come up with at least as many for Reps.
Or let me put it this way: if you think that the worst scandal of the Obama era was the time he wore a tan suit, I'm not interested in your take on any political wrongdoing ever again. If you think that Ilhan Omar's comments about Jews buying votes for Israel were fine, then you've simply been brainwashed into supporting your own party.
What do I think of the impeachment? Trump was impeached on two articles. I would have supported one of them and I think the other is ridiculous. Yes, he abused his power with his "perfect call" to Ukraine. That abuse of power is part of a series of incidents from him in which he displays that he has no understanding of the limits of his office and no interest in being bound by law, custom or the Constitution.
I think that his abuse was serious to have him removed from office but I understand where others would differ. He did hold up aid, but not in a meaningful way. Ukraine was not materially effected by his actions. Also, I'm not particularly convinced that we can describe his attempts to dig up dirt on a probable opponent as "trying to sway an election". Or rather, if we can, then quite a bit of traditional political activity falls under that heading. Campaigns regularly dig up dirt as "opposition research". The details in doing so are often noxious. I do think that this crossed a line, but not nearly so far as, say, what Nixon did with Watergate. Throw in the fact that we're coming up on an election where the people can remove Trump and I can understand not voting to remove him.
The second article, that Trump should be removed because he obstructed Congress, is ridiculous. It represents a standard that Democrats would never hold one of their own to. They certainly wouldn't have held Obama to it. Presidents often resist investigations from the opposition party. Given the history of such investigations becoming fishing expeditions, who can blame them?
This means that my votes would have tracked with Romney.
No, the country is not at risk and anyone who says we now have a dictator is delusional and should either be ignored or medicated. We simply live in highly partisan times. I don't see anything on the horizon that will change that.
I don't want to hear any more sanctimony from Democratic supporting peoples about how they stand up for their convictions more than Republicans do. Most political people work hard to find context for why their opponent is worse than he probably is and context for why their guy is more innocent than not. I can provide about two dozen examples of Dems doing this. I'm sure they can come up with at least as many for Reps.
Or let me put it this way: if you think that the worst scandal of the Obama era was the time he wore a tan suit, I'm not interested in your take on any political wrongdoing ever again. If you think that Ilhan Omar's comments about Jews buying votes for Israel were fine, then you've simply been brainwashed into supporting your own party.
What do I think of the impeachment? Trump was impeached on two articles. I would have supported one of them and I think the other is ridiculous. Yes, he abused his power with his "perfect call" to Ukraine. That abuse of power is part of a series of incidents from him in which he displays that he has no understanding of the limits of his office and no interest in being bound by law, custom or the Constitution.
I think that his abuse was serious to have him removed from office but I understand where others would differ. He did hold up aid, but not in a meaningful way. Ukraine was not materially effected by his actions. Also, I'm not particularly convinced that we can describe his attempts to dig up dirt on a probable opponent as "trying to sway an election". Or rather, if we can, then quite a bit of traditional political activity falls under that heading. Campaigns regularly dig up dirt as "opposition research". The details in doing so are often noxious. I do think that this crossed a line, but not nearly so far as, say, what Nixon did with Watergate. Throw in the fact that we're coming up on an election where the people can remove Trump and I can understand not voting to remove him.
The second article, that Trump should be removed because he obstructed Congress, is ridiculous. It represents a standard that Democrats would never hold one of their own to. They certainly wouldn't have held Obama to it. Presidents often resist investigations from the opposition party. Given the history of such investigations becoming fishing expeditions, who can blame them?
This means that my votes would have tracked with Romney.
No, the country is not at risk and anyone who says we now have a dictator is delusional and should either be ignored or medicated. We simply live in highly partisan times. I don't see anything on the horizon that will change that.
Labels: Trump
posted by Peder @ 6:01 AM
0 comments
