Hiræth Weltschmerz @ae@qoto.org
observing and hypothesizing
Joined Sep 2019
THE CALDRON. Supreme good fortune. Success. THE WANDERER. Success through smallness. Perseverance brings good fortune To the wanderer.
In science we study numbers much much much smaller, and when doing so we compare relative difference.
So in this case let's pretend we are discussing specifically voting against party lines of the two parties in the impeachment trial. We ignore all the numbers not related to this study, 99.3% of the data is not within the scope of our study.
All we are left with is 2% of republicans did not vote YES. 3.9% of democrats did not vote YES. The difference is certainly statistically significant: democrats are 51% more likely to vote outside of party lines than republicans. That's more than double.
@freemo well no, you shouldn't spin at all that's my point. Democrats voted less along party lines than the Republicans is just an objective, factual statement. And they voted outside of party lines more than twice as much as the republicans.
That data gives me at least some reason believe that there is at least a *plausible* chance that *some* of the house democrats are acting at least in *partial* good faith.
@freemo five total no votes from dems, zero yes votes from repubs. It's ridiculous!
@freemo correct nine democrats voted other than yes. only 4 repubs voted other than yes. over 100% discrepancy and very reflective I think.
@design_RG just trying to bring some nature to the fediverse try to balance some of us out who dont get to be in nature every day.
@freemo that's not true, there were NINE votes by democrats that were not YES. over 100% more than the republicans. That is huge relative variability and points to the democrats are more open minded and not just voting on party lines, while the republicans are likely being less thoughtful. Only 4 repulbican votes were not NO. This is very good evidence your hypothesis is wrong. I expect as an open minded person you can at least admit these objective numbers do not help your case and do help mine at least a little tiny bit.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment-vote.html
You are also leaving out that the senate majority leader and person running the trial has said he will not allow witnesses or evidence and will vote in favor of trump no matter what. It requires at least a small stretch of the imagination to think that the ONLY reasons the house wants to hold on to the trial documents is to cover their butts, it is much more likely that they simply want it to be at least a legitimate trial. If it is a sham trial as has been announced already, the verdict will be meaningless, and trump won't credibly be innocent or guilty either way. It's insanely anti-democratic to be on the republicans side in this instance on pure technicalities, regardless of the subject at hand. Purely mechanically and objectively the house is at least *plausibly* (regardless of actual motives) attempting to do what's right to ensure that the process is done legally and correctly. To assume it is strictly some political thing to save face seems so anti occams razor. Definitely a bit of both, but I just can't believe you are 100% on the republicans side on this, I feelike you have to at least give 10% 20% possibility the democrats are at least partially in good faith trying to do the right thing right?
“Whatever is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.”
No special subject-matter
@freemo 100% pure extract of condensed spacetime
@freemo yeah the majority argument is just the first part, I actually should have just left it out as I don't even particularly agree with it myself, the very last part of my argument is the more legit argument: the numbers are clear: democrats did not exclusively vote down the party line while the republicans did, so your original claim is easy to counter. If anyone is voting strictly by party for gross politics it is the republicans while the democrats have voted more impartially. There is no argument there.
and calling for an investigation into your #1 political opponent I think is very dangerous and is a go-to device in phony regime toolbox, so I cannot imagine thinking it is a "desperate" move, especially when the democrats won by a massive margin in the last election, they have momentum on their side, while the republicans are in the much more sensitive position to lose power.
I don't see any evidence for your democrats being slaughtered in the polls, as they overwhelmingly came out on top in last (mid-term) election, and if using ones unique power to smear a political opponent (who does not have equal footing with which to respond or counteract) is not a clear offence against the security of our elections, then I doubt very much else is impeachable either.
I think if it turned out Trump was withholding money to a foreign country (using a unique power as leverage) for personal benefit it would be extortion. And extortion by the president is illegal in the constitution. And then the DAY the racket leaked Trump turned around and gave Ukraine the money it just reeks of guilt. So I disagree I guess fundamentally with your premise that in this instance the president without a doubt did not do something illegal. I find it hard to imagine anything worse than a president *seemingly* dangling a piece of land that Putin is *actively* trying to take over for something as small as to smear his #1 political opponent. It is so absurdly corrupt and dangerous I just can't understand how it should not at least be *investigated*. If you think that there should not be a trial to make sure that there wasn't an abuse of power, I just cannot wrap my head around your point of view. You don't think it should be investigated, just to be sure Trump didn't do what I just described seemingly happened? We should just assume the best and not look into it any more at all? That is baffling. All the house is calling for is a trial to look at the evidence impartially, to MAKE SURE there is no abuse of power. How can that, in any universe, be a bad idea?
You don't think we should make sure trump, who is famously corrupt, hasn't done something compromising? The house should have just let it go and move on and assume the best?
@freemo I understand that you think it is a farce and a power play just for politicking and for democrats to compete in 2020. And I see how that could absolutely be the case, I am cynical and the last impeachment was exactly as you just described, so would be par for the course. But while I do not think just because it is common belief it makes it right, I think it is important for someone with such cynical views as your own to remember that your perspective on the events is the minority view, and regardless of congressional votes, most people think what is happening is warranted. The majority can often be wrong, but it's important when you are describing what amounts to a conspiracy requiring giving the benefit of the doubt to a man who has been famously corrupt and manipulative his entire life, that maybe the minority position is the minority for a reason. The average person on the street is more likely to view the acts you described as fishy and wrong than not, and while I personally wouldn't put much weight on the average person for most opinions, it's just something to keep in mind that most people think donald trump is acting selfishly with corrupt motives for his own personal benefit and to the detriment of the country.
But to the actual actions of donald trump. Not only is it not his job to investigate bank employees in foreign countries, if the outcome of the investigation personally benefits him and makes an election process less fair, it is illegal, and there is evidence that the way that trump approached it was in fact illegal, which is why he is being taken to trial. He specifically asked for Ukraine to announce publicly that they were investigating a Biden, and this is really crucial. Because if Trump just wanted to end corruption, at no point does it require announcing an investigation before it has begun or found any evidence. The whole announcement think makes it clear Trump was not pursuing it to make the world a better place, but specifically to make him look good and make the Bidens look bad, which is the fictional villain stuff of comic books, or how crappy politicians (historically) manipulate elections. Barring that one aspect I almost would be as cynical as you, maybe Trump just came across some info in his position of power and wanted to use his knowledge and reach to make sure the problem was fixed. He didn't ask anyone to fabricate anything, he asked them to announce the investigation into the family of his #1 political opponent without any evidence discovered at all, which is, when you think about it, very similiar, at least as far as mass media and political outcome is concerned.
You leave out the one republican (Amash) that switched to independent to support trump's impeachment, so both the republicans and democrats had one defector.
What makes it hard is that it really is a dicey game. Some 30% of the population will absolutely not support you if you go against Trump, even if he shot someone on 5th avenue. Completely nixing 30% of the population is practically political suicide, so as a professional politician one would have to think long and hard to do anything publicly against trump, even if you have video evidence of him shooting down an unarmed person in the street. Even with that footage you lose any chance of support from a third of the country, it is a terribly dangerous move.
Democrats don't want to do it, because they are essentially centrists on the political spectrum, and hope they can get support from that 30% some day some way, but they figure they can risk it since that 30% they can never recover probably already were the 30% that would never vote for them. It is a hard decision for them because it's going to seem divisive and arbitrary and like they are trying to interfere with the election, and so they discuss it back and forth and almost don't even do it, but then eventually the phone calls and everything come out, which in their mind and the mind of more than 50% of the population, are condemning and sincerely show a man abusing his position of power, and (at least some of them) feel they have to do what's right, and have done the math and figured that 30% probably was a lost cause as far as earning their votes goes. So they go through with presenting the evidence that the president broke the law.
The republicans on the other hand *cannot afford to do anything* about trump shooting a person in the street. It is actual political suicide. More than half of their voters really like trump no matter what he does, so if they do anything to upset that base they cannot compete in politics anymore. They have literally no choice but to ignore trump shooting someone dead in the street. If they don't ignore it, they lose their jobs. It is a no brainer and does not take much thought. Some are thinking "I can't afford my mortgage or my kids education unless I do whatever it takes to keep my job, which is already in a precarious position as the entire planet moves away from conservatism." It's the last little island where a job like that can exist, and the world is changing so there may not be any other opportunities like it ever again. So of course you have no choice but to keep your job. I don't even blame them it's practically in the 10 commandments of capitalism that one sacrifice ones morals just to keep a job. I blame the system for forcing these poor men to ignore what I'm sure many of them know is explicit corruption just because they are too desperate to keep their positions in a world that is outgrowing them. You can see how that is not debatable right? The republicans don't just have more to lose if they try to prosecute Trump for shooting someone, they have *everything* to lose. Their hands are utterly tied. It's the downside of a two party system. While some republicans (maybe a majority even, who knows) think Trump is innocent and the whole impeachment is a farce, there is no doubt there are men there that think Trump is corrupt and deserves a trial, but they cannot do anything. They are trapped, their freedom totally squashed due to party politics. You *must* be able to imagine how that *could* be true, and how likely it is that at least one republican in the house would have voted for impeachment if they were totally free to do so. And how the same is not as true for the dems voting against impeachment, as they are not in as much as a sticky situation and so are not as pressured to vote on party lines? Of course it's mirrored on both sides, but the numbers are plain as day: democrats felt more free to vote sincerely, they had more variety in their votes than the repubs. I don't see how you can look at the numbers and determine anything other than the republicans were voting for their own party exclusively while the democrats were voting with more open minds. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-impeachment-vote.html
I'm not big on politics but we interact on here and I saw your post and I had to say something. I don't believe you can consider all the facts and where all of these men are coming from and then put more of the "party line politics" blame on the dems over the republicans. If you consider the facts it is overwhelmingly clear that the gross politicking is much more heavily represented by the republicans who have much more to lose. And trust me, I completely see your point and a part of me thinks all the bastard politicians are to blame and both sides are guilty of being corrupt assholes, but if I have to get specific I find it extremely hard to see how the democrats are worse in this scenario.
RT @janellecshane
me: i wonder what would happen if i trained the neural net gpt-2 on christmas carols?
me: ...
me: oh NO
https://aiweirdness.com/post/189845472982/the-ais-carol
https://wandering.shop/@janellecshane/103363297132633005
“To support mother and father, to cherish partner and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupation — this is the greatest blessing.”
observing and hypothesizing
Joined Sep 2019
