The thread for stupidity from GQP politicians who don't have their own thread

[Segnosaur]

Tom Cotton... saying the quiet part out loud...

From: The Guardian
In January 2020, the rightwing Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton said he would vote to acquit Donald Trump in his first impeachment trial... In a new book, however, Cotton boasts that he spent his time refusing to pay attention – pretending to read materials relevant to the president’s trial – but hiding his real reading matter under a fake cover....He adds: “I was paying attention – to the story that mattered most. The outcome of the impeachment trial was a foregone conclusion, and it wouldn’t impact the daily lives of normal Americans.”

Hmmm... maybe it was a foregone conclusion because scumbags like you weren't actually paying attention to the trial.

Hmmm... I wonder if I can use that if I ever get selected for jury duty.

 

[Trebuchet]

Tom Cotton... saying the quiet part out loud...

From: The Guardian
In January 2020, the rightwing Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton said he would vote to acquit Donald Trump in his first impeachment trial... In a new book, however, Cotton boasts that he spent his time refusing to pay attention – pretending to read materials relevant to the president’s trial – but hiding his real reading matter under a fake cover....He adds: “I was paying attention – to the story that mattered most. The outcome of the impeachment trial was a foregone conclusion, and it wouldn’t impact the daily lives of normal Americans.”
Hmmm... maybe it was a foregone conclusion because scumbags like you weren't actually paying attention to the trial.

Hmmm... I wonder if I can use that if I ever get selected for jury duty.

He's not wrong about that. Both impeachments were stupid and harmed the Dems more than they did Trump.

 

[JoeMorgue]

He's not wrong but in any sane and decent world he would be.

And he's definitely not saying it with a "this isn't how it should be" vibe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He's not wrong about that. Both impeachments were stupid and harmed the Dems more than they did Trump.

What was the alternative? Not to try and hold Trump accountable at all?

 

[JoeMorgue]

What was the alternative? Not to try and hold Trump accountable at all?

I mean.... yes, no, maybe, yes with a but, no with an except, a little of all of that.

The President of the United States being as gleefully evil as Trump was and ~40% of the population being both okay and protective of it is sort of a non-win scenario.

There simply was no "good solution."

Trump was not going to get convicted in either of his two impeachments. That's a fact that can't just be made untrue because it's so disgustingly unpleasant to accept. The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump was one step above "Thoughts and Prayers" at best.

But doing not anything mean that Jan 6 was basically a practice run and giving it legitimacy it could not be allowed to have.

The line between "Do nothing so you don't something purely meaningless and therefore counter productive" and "Do something, anything just so your voice is heard" is not an easy one.

Are you right? Is Trebuchet right? I have no idea. Neither of you are exactly right, neither of you are exactly wrong.

 

[Aridas]

Hmmm... maybe it was a foregone conclusion because scumbags like you weren't actually paying attention to the trial.

No. Paying attention to the trial wouldn't change anything. Trump's guilt was obvious and overwhelming. All the Republicans knew it, too. The foregone conclusion bit more properly refers to the fact that the Republicans didn't care and were going to vote to protect Trump despite that. To put it slightly differently, they willingly made themselves accomplices. But then, even committing felony for Trump, so long as it goes unpunished, is no problem for too many.

 

[Stacyhs]

No. Paying attention to the trial wouldn't change anything. Trump's guilt was obvious and overwhelming. All the Republicans knew it, too. The foregone conclusion bit more properly refers to the fact that the Republicans didn't care and were going to vote to protect Trump despite that. To put it slightly differently, they willingly made themselves accomplices. But then, even committing felony for Trump, so long as it goes unpunished, is no problem for too many.

Agreed. If a juror in a trial admitted to doing what Cotton did, they could be charged with perjury as they have sworn an oath:

"Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?"

"When a person affirms, he or she promises “under the pains and penalties of perjury” to carry out the functions undertaken as a juror."

Cotton admitted he was going to vote not guilty no matter what the evidence, so he committed perjury.

 

[Fidelio]

I just call them trumpscuckers. I'm told that's impolite though.

 

[Trebuchet]

He's not wrong but in any sane and decent world he would be.

And he's definitely not saying it with a "this isn't how it should be" vibe.

Agreed

What was the alternative? Not to try and hold Trump accountable at all?

Dunno. But the impeachments, as far as I can tell, did the Dems more harm than good.

I mean.... yes, no, maybe, yes with a but, no with an except, a little of all of that.

The President of the United States being as gleefully evil as Trump was and ~40% of the population being both okay and protective of it is sort of a non-win scenario.

There simply was no "good solution."

Trump was not going to get convicted in either of his two impeachments. That's a fact that can't just be made untrue because it's so disgustingly unpleasant to accept. The Impeachment of Donald J. Trump was one step above "Thoughts and Prayers" at best.

But doing not anything mean that Jan 6 was basically a practice run and giving it legitimacy it could not be allowed to have.

The line between "Do nothing so you don't something purely meaningless and therefore counter productive" and "Do something, anything just so your voice is heard" is not an easy one.

Are you right? Is Trebuchet right? I have no idea. Neither of you are exactly right, neither of you are exactly wrong.

Nommed. There was no right answer, but I don't think the impeachments were it.
We can expect another impeachment trial sometime in the coming year. It'll have a better chance of succeeding.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think the Dems had no choice other than to impeach Trump both times. The fact that the GOP was obviously not going to convict him is really irrelevant because not holding Trump accountable for his actions was the worse choice of the two as it would have shown that the POTUS is above the law. IMO, this will reflect far worse on the Republicans than on the Dems in future histories.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Dunno. But the impeachments, as far as I can tell, did the Dems more harm than good.

OK. How do you tell that?

 

[Ladewig]

I just call them trumpscuckers. I'm told that's impolite though.

Let’s take a vote.

I vote not impolite.

Anyone else?

 

[Aridas]

Let’s take a vote.

I vote not impolite.

Anyone else?

Truth certainly can be impolite, though.


As for the impeachments - I'm in the group that says that they were necessary - in multiple ways. It's certainly possible that Democrats ended up in a worse position after the impeachments, but that's not good evidence that the impeachments were a wrong move. More properly, it's a question of what would have happened if they didn't impeach Trump compared to what happened with doing so. I would dare to say that Democrats failing to actually stand up for real principles in the first place would have very likely hurt them more than standing up for real principles and being blocked by traitors to the country.

 

[Susheel]

I don't think anyone was under the illusion that those impeachments would succeed, at least towards the end. I mean, many Repugnican reps publically stated even before the proceedings that acquittal was a foregone conclusion where they were concerned. However, I am pretty sure that revelations at the impeachment played a major role in mobilization of voters against Trump and the Republicans in the 2019 elections.

 

[Norman Alexander]

The goal of impeachment was to publicly embarrass Donny. Conviction would have been a bonus.

 

[Aridas]

The goal of impeachment was to publicly embarrass Donny. Conviction would have been a bonus.

Err... I'd call that a silver lining, at best. I'd grant political calculations as being part of the goal, but... "embarrass Donny" is not really part of that. Donny embarrassed himself constantly, after all. In both impeachment cases, embarrassing Donny honestly had little to do with anything, I think.

 

[dasmiller]

He's not wrong about that. Both impeachments were stupid and harmed the Dems more than they did Trump.

Then American government is simply broken. When the President obviously abuses his power, the main concern should not be "how will this benefit our party?"

 

[thaiboxerken]

Agreed

Dunno. But the impeachments, as far as I can tell, did the Dems more harm than good.


Nommed. There was no right answer, but I don't think the impeachments were it.
We can expect another impeachment trial sometime in the coming year. It'll have a better chance of succeeding.

How did the impeachments harm the Dems more than if they would not have?

 

[gnome]

I think what the impeachments did was make Mitch McConnell the president for a while. Certainly he could have asked President Trump for absolutely anything at that time and he'd be in no position to refuse.

 

[Trebuchet]

Then American government is simply broken. When the President obviously abuses his power, the main concern should not be "how will this benefit our party?"

Completely correct.